Supreme Court live streams Constitution Bench cases : What are the advantages and possible disadvantages of the move

The Supreme Court marks a milestone today by flagging off live streaming of cases to be heard by the Constitution Bench, which sits to “decide any matter involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution” according to Article 145(3) of the Constitution. These cases are considered to be of national importance.

The go ahead to live streaming of cases comes after a 4-year wait during which the Supreme Court formulated procedures to broadcast the court hearings. The first-ever live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings was done on August 26 when former Chief Justice of India (CJI) N V Ramana’s retirement was relayed real time.

The court streaming can be watched on the Supreme Court’s own website webcast.gov.in/scindia/

On Tuesday (27 September) three constitution benches are scheduled to sit, each presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

The cases before the court today that will be live streamed include the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Quota case, the matter related to the ‘real’ Shiv Sena and another matter related to the All India Bar Examination, Live Law reported.

The CJI-led Constitution Bench will be hearing a batch of petitions that challenge the 10 per cent quota to the EWS category. These pleas challenge the 103rd Constitution Amendment. The Justice Chandrachud-led bench will hear cases filed by Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena seeking to restrain the Election Commission of India (ECI) from taking a decision on who the ‘real Shiv Sena’ is after the Eknath Shinde-led faction of the party demanded to be recognised as the parent organisation. The top court is seized of several petitions regarding the Maharashtra political crisis.

Besides these, Justice Kaul's bench will hear the matter relating to the vailidity of the All India Bar Examination.

The journey to live streaming

In 2018, a three-judge Bench comprising then CJI Dipak Misra, Justice A M Khanwilkar, and Justice D Y Chandrachud agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking live streaming of judicial proceedings on matters of constitutional and national importance.

In March 2018, the court sought the opinion of Attorney General (AG) of India KK Venugopal who granted his approval while making suggestions that the proceedings should include transcripts and that the court must retain the right to withhold live streaming, which were incorporated.

The AG also recommended that the pilot begin in Court no. 1 (the CJI’s court) in Constitution Bench cases. There are protections in place for victims, witnesses and defendants who may choose to broadcast anonymously in which case face distortion will be permitted. The court will not relay proceedings on matrimonial matters, cases involving juveniles and those related to national security. Cases that can disrupt communal harmony will be withheld. And also, the court will exempt proceedings in all matters relating to sexual assault and rape, and others that involve confidential and sensitive information. Matters where publicity would be antithetical to the administration of justice will also be an exception.

Arguments for and against live-streaming

The petitioners who argued for live streaming cited the principle of open access to justice. The proponents of the move say that broadcasting will make courts more transparent and accessible to the public. The AG, while giving his consent, said that live-streaming would de-congest courts and allow petitioners, litigants, claimants and other actors as well as the general public to access proceedings from the comfort of their homes.

However, live-streaming has raised few concerns as well. There are likely to be greater instances of content-hungry social media channels to distort court clippings with sensational headlines and disseminate those to the public propagating disinformation.

Some judges and advocates may use the eyeballs gained by live-streaming for personal exposure. For greater air-time, there could be longer delays in deciding cases that are live streamed.

Already, as many as six high courts including the Gujarat High court are live-streaming their proceedings. Despite the concerns, the pilot project in the Supreme Court could be a step toward greater transparency and accountability as long as all actors behave with responsibility.