The Calcutta High Court on February 12 granted permission to live stream proceedings on a matter that dealt with allowing children of Parsi Zoroastrian women married to non-Parsis access to a fire temple in Kolkata. T

hough no date was set for the hearing that would be live-streamed, the court cleared that the cost of the two special cameras and equipment to telecast live on YouTube would be borne by the Parsi Zoroastrian Association, Calcutta, an applicant.

This is the first such instance since the Supreme Court’s September 2018 decision when judges held that live streaming of court proceedings would lead to greater transparency and serve as an instrument of greater accountability.
 

What Supreme Court Said In 2018
A bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Mishra, and of Justices AM Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, decided case titled Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1232 OF 2017, on 26.09.2019 and said that live-streaming of court proceedings is in public interest and would help bring the judiciary’s work to citizens.

“... sunlight is the best disinfectant. Live-streaming, as an extension of the principle of open courts… bring accountability to judicial process,” Chandrachud had said in their concurring verdicIt was said a pilot project for live-streaming would be initiated from the SC and extended to high courts and lower courts.

For starters, only a specified category of cases, those of national importance before the Constitution Bench, would be live-streamed but the mechanism would be set up in all courtrooms. The court had said sensitive cases such as those concerning matrimonial disputes or sexual assalt should not, however, be live-streamed.

The bench had asked the SC to frame rules to permit live broadcast of proceedings and put in place equipment, including cameras, in courtrooms.t with the CJI’s.

CJI's Call

Earlier this month, on February 4, hearing an application by senior advocate Indira Jaising who sought implementation of the 2018 order, SC said it would be dealt with by the Chief Justice (CJI) on the “administrative side”. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said it would not pass any judicial order in the matter and it was for the CJI to deal with it as administrative head. "There cannot be any command to the administrative side of SC. CJI has to take a call," said the bench that included Justices Vineet Saran and M R Shah.

Judges Who Tried
Live-streaming has long been considered desirable. Occasionally high court judges have deemed it fit to open proceedings for public viewing. The HC in Hyderabad has seen instances of its judges as far back as 2005 allowing television media into the courtroom and video-recording when they took up special judicial assignments.

Justice B K Somasekhara allowed his court hearings to go live when he was heading a judicial commission of inquiry into alleged irregularities in the name of compensation for land acquired over a 100-km stretch for Yeleru canal between Visakhapatnam and East Godavari districts. Somasekhara, then a sitting judge, was made head of the inquiry in 1996 and he went on to allow TV media into his courtroom. His quizzing of ministers of finance, revenue, irrigation et al were recorded live.

In fact, in 2005, Somasekhara even sought permission from the Union information and broadcasting ministry (I&B) to allow Doordarshan (DD) to telecast live when key politicians were questioned on letting crores slip into the wrong hands in the Yeleru scam case. Since the scam unfolded during the TDP's tenure, the party had opposed the probe tooth and nail. And though the Congress initially supported Somasekhara’s mission to make the political class accountable, it eventually backed out after seeing politicians in the witness box.

To his DD request, the commission got no response from the I&B ministry then headed by S Jaipal Reddy.

Andhra human rights commission chairman Justice B Subhashan Reddy’s decision to allow live telecast of his court proceedings in 2005 proved to be a nightmare for those facing allegations of human rights violations. In the going-viral version of that era, viewers delighted in the questioning of the accused and their squeamishly mumbled answers.

Justice B Siva Sankar Rao of the Hyderabad high court carried on the rare tradition into 2016 when he ordered video recording of his court’s proceedings in the "vote for note" scam. But the hearing was ‘in-camera’.

Bombay Bar Association president Milind Sathe is all for it in Mumbai. "The Calcutta HC judgment… such streaming can be introduced here on a pilot project basis, at least for PIL hearings," he said. Advocate Jamshed Mistry, who has advocated legal transcription for long, said, "Legal transcription and live streaming will ensure complete transparency. It'll immensely benefit the judiciary, lawyers, litigants and media. In Mumbai, a few applications to implement it are pending before the HC." The Delhi HC, meanwhile, has reportedly dismissed a few such applications.

In March 2019, Justice SM Subramaniam of the Madras HC in one of his orders expressed willingness to webcast proceedings regularly. “Webcasting, they say, will not cost much. People can sit in the comfort of their home and watch. I am willing to implement it in my court,” he said.

Courts Not Moving
In the months since SC’s verdict, little has moved. While the Kerala HC cites funds for infrastructure, the Jharkhand HC appears to have the required system in place since 2012 but is holding on. In May 2012, then SC judge Altamas Kabir had inaugurated the e-court room facility for online trial of a case from Madhupur in Deoghar district. The court room was linked to the apex court, high court and 24 district courts.

In September 2013, one of Ranchi’s court rooms was inaugurated with video-recording facilities by then SC judge MB Lokur. But no plans are on the anvil to enable live-streaming. Jharkhand HC registrar Ambuj Nath declined to comment. Assistant AG Manoj Tandon believes such initiative can refine judicial proceedings, but added, “That's my personal opinion.”

The Kerala HC administration, too, wants funds and has said that it is willing to implement live-streaming at the earliest, perhaps withing three months.

Rajasthan is also waiting. An HC administrator said, “There is nothing concrete. Neither any direction was issued by the state’s law ministry nor by the Centre. As far as we’re concerned, the SC had directed the Centre to issue guidelines to start this. On February 4, the SC refused to pass any judicial order on a plea to implement its 2018 judgement, saying it would be decided by the CJI.”

From the Bombay HC to Delhi, Allahabad and Patna, even Chhattisgarh, Himachal and Nainital, little has moved on putting in place the infrastructure required to live stream court proceedings in the event a judge considers it desirable.

What Other Countries Do

  • UK live-streams cases in its SC
  •  South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil permit live-streaming/recording of court proceedings
  • Canada's apex court has webcast system in place where hearings can be watched live. Everything is archived for public access
  • Canada’s Federal Court started a pilot project of webcast last year on "interesting and important cases" streamed through the app Zoom. Participants can log on and watch a live feed. The project was in keeping with policy on public and media access, which reinforces Canada’s open court principle that “court hearings are open to public and may be reported in full”, with exceptions. The federal court also accepts that it has a responsibility to assist the media in achieving those goals
  • The US Supreme Court does not permit video recording or photography of its proceedings. It releases audio transcripts of the oral arguments on the same day

Source link

Picture Source :