1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1232  OF  2017   

 Swapnil Tripathi          ….. Petitioner(s)  

:Versus:    

Supreme Court of India         ....Respondent(s)  WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 66   OF 2018  

Indira Jaising           …..Petitioner(s)  

:Versus:  

Secretary General & Ors.         ....Respondent(s)  AND  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 861  OF  2018   

Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors.        ….. Petitioner(s)  

:Versus:  

Supreme Court of India & Ors.         …..Respondent(s)  

AND  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 892  OF  2018  

Centre for Accountability and Systemic   

Change & Ors.           ….. Petitioner(s)  

:Versus:  

Secretary General & Ors.       …..Respondent(s)  

2    

J U D G M E N T  

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.  

1. The petitioners and interventionists, claiming to be  

public spirited persons, have sought a declaration that  

Supreme Court case proceedings of “constitutional importance  

having an impact on the public at large or a large number of  

people” should be live streamed in a manner that is easily  

accessible for public viewing.  Further direction is sought to  

frame guidelines to enable the determination of exceptional  

cases that qualify for live streaming and to place those  

guidelines before the Full Court of this Court. To buttress  

these prayers, reliance has been placed on the dictum of a  

nine-Judge Bench of this Court in Naresh Shridhar  

Mirajkar and Ors.  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,1  

which has had an occasion to inter alia consider the  

arguments of journalists that they had a fundamental right to  

carry on their occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the  

Constitution; that they also had a right to attend the  

proceedings in court under Article 19(1)(d); and that their right  

                                                           1  (1966) 3 SCR 744

3    

to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article  

19(1)(a) included their right to publish a faithful report of the  

proceedings which they had witnessed and heard in Court as  

journalists. The Court whilst considering the said argument  

went on to emphasise about the efficacy of open trials for  

upholding the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Courts and  

for enhancement of public confidence and support. It would be  

apposite to reproduce the relevant extract from the said  

decision propounding about the efficacy of hearing of cases in  

open courts, in the following words:  

 “20….. It is well-settled that in general, all cases brought  before the Courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be  

heard in open Court. Public trial in open court is  undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair  administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public  

scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial  caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for  

creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity,  and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public  confidence in the administration of justice is of such great  

significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad  proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial  Tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open and  

must permit the public admission to the court room. As  Bentham has observed :  

 „In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in  every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as  

publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to  judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity  

there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It

4    

is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards  against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while  

trying under trial (in the sense that) the security of  securities is publicity‟. (Scott v. Scott [(1911) All. E.R. 1,  

30]) ”     

2. Indeed, the right of access to justice flowing from Article  

21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the  

doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public gets access to  

the proceedings as it would unfold before the Courts and in  

particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect  

of matters having an impact on the public at large or on  

section of people. This would educate them about the issues  

which come up for consideration before the Court on real time  

basis.  

  3. As no person can be heard to plead ignorance of law,  

there is corresponding obligation on the State to spread  

awareness about the law and the developments thereof  

including the evolution of the law which may happen in the  

process of adjudication of cases before this Court. The right to  

know and receive information, it is by now well settled, is a  

facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and for which

5    

reason the public is entitled to witness Court proceedings  

involving issues having an impact on the public at large or a  

section of the public, as the case may be. This right to receive  

information and be informed is buttressed by the value of  

dignity of the people. One of the proponents has also  

highlighted the fact that litigants involved in large number of  

cases pending before the Courts throughout the country will  

be benefitted if access to Court proceedings is made possible  

by way of live streaming of Court proceedings. That would  

increase the productivity of the country, since scores of  

persons  involved in litigation in the courts in India will be able  

to avoid visiting the courts in person, on regular basis, to  

witness hearings and instead can attend to their daily work   

without taking leave.   

 4. As the debate has actuated momentous issues, we had  

requested the learned Attorney General for India, Shri K.K.  

Venugopal to collate the suggestions given by him as well as  

the petitioners and interventionists and submit a  

comprehensive note for evolving a framework, in the event the

6    

relief claimed in the writ petition(s) was to be granted. We shall  

advert to the same a little later.  

5. We have heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney  

General for India, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate,  

Mr. Virag Gupta learned counsel, Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara,  

learned Advocate and other petitioners/intervenors appearing  

in-person.   

  6. Indisputably, open trials and access to the public during  

hearing of cases before the Court is an accepted proposition.  

As regards the pronouncement of judgments by the Supreme  

Court, there is an express stipulation in Article 145(4) of the  

Constitution that such pronouncements shall be made in open  

Court. Indeed, no such express provision is found in the  

Constitution regarding “open Court hearing” before the  

Supreme Court, but that can be traced to provisions such as  

Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)  

and Section 153-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)  

which read thus:  

7    

 Section 327 CrPC  

 “327. Court to be open.- (1) The place in which any  

Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or  trying any offence shall be deemed to be an open Court, to  which the public generally may have access, so far as the  

same can conveniently contain them;  Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he  thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of,  

any particular case, that the public generally, or any  particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain  

in, the room or building used by the Court.   (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),  the inquiry into the trail of rape or an offence under section  

376, section 376-A, section 376-B, section 376-C [section  376-D or section 376-E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of  

1860)] shall be conducted in camera;  Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, or on  an application made by either of the parties, allow any  

particular person to have access to, or be or remain in, the  room or building used by the Court;  

[Provided further that in camera trial shall be conducted as  far as practicable by a woman Judge or Magistrate.]  (3) Where any proceedings are held under sub-section (2), it  

shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any  matter in relation to any such proceedings, except with the  

previous permission of the Court:]  [Provided that the ban on printing or publication of trail  proceedings in relation to an offence of rape may be lifted,  

subject to maintaining confidentiality of name and address  of the parties.]”    

Section 153-B CPC    “153-B. Place of trial to be deemed to be open Court.- The  

place in which any Civil Court is held for the purpose of  trying any suit shall be deemed to be an open Court, to  

which the public generally may have access so far as the  same can conveniently contain them:  Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, order  

at any state of any inquiry into or trial of any particular case,  that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not

8    

have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used  by the Court.”  

 7. Notably, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (supra), this  

Court, in no uncertain terms, expounded that open trial is the  

norm but, at the same time, cautioned that there may be  

situations where the administration of justice itself may make  

it necessary for the Courts to hold in-camera trials. Applying  

the underlying principles, it may be appropriate to have a  

proper and balanced regulatory framework before the concept  

of live streaming of Court proceedings of this Court or any  

other courts in India  is put into action.   

 8. Indubitably, live streaming of Court proceedings has  the   

potential  of throwing up an option to the public to witness live  

court proceedings which they otherwise could not have due to  

logistical issues and infrastructural restrictions of Courts; and  

would also provide them with a more direct sense of what has  

transpired. Thus, technological solutions can be a tool to  

facilitate actualization of the right of access to justice bestowed  

on all and the litigants in particular, to provide them virtual

9    

entry in the Court precincts and more particularly in Court  

rooms. In the process, a large segment of persons, be it  

entrants in the legal profession, journalists, civil society  

activists, academicians or students of law will be able to view  

live proceedings in propria persona on real time basis. There is  

unanimity between all the protagonists that live streaming of  

Supreme Court proceedings at least in respect of cases of  

Constitutional and national importance, having an impact on  

the public at large or on a large number of people in India,  

may be a good beginning, as is suggested across the Bar.   

9. Live streaming of Court proceedings is feasible due to the  

advent of technology and, in fact, has been adopted in other  

jurisdictions across the world. Live streaming of Court  

proceedings, in one sense, with the use of technology is to  

“virtually” expand the Court room area beyond the physical  

four walls of the Court rooms. Technology is evolving with  

increasing swiftness whereas the law and the courts are  

evolving at a much more measured pace. This Court cannot be  

oblivious to the reality that technology has the potential to

10    

usher in tangible and intangible benefits which can  

consummate the aspirations of the stakeholders and litigants  

in particular. It can epitomize transparency, good governance  

and accountability, and more importantly, open the vista of  

the court rooms, transcending the four walls of the rooms to  

accommodate a large number of viewers to witness the live  

Court proceedings. Introducing and integrating such  

technology into the courtrooms would give the viewing public a  

virtual presence in the courtroom and also educate them  

about the working of the court.   

  10. We must hasten to add that our attention was invited to  

the decision taken by the Advisory Council of the National  

Mission of Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms on the proposal  

to initiate audio video recording on an experimental basis in  

the Courts. In its meeting held on 26th August, 2014, it was  

noted that audio video recording of Court proceedings was  

proposed in the Policy and Action Plan Document for Phase II  

for the e-Courts Mission Mode Project. However, in the  

meeting of the E-Committee held on 8th January, 2014, the

11    

issue was taken up but was deferred as it required  

consultation with Hon‟ble Judges of the Supreme Court and  

the High Courts. Indeed, consultation with the Hon‟ble Judges  

of the Supreme Court and the High Courts may become  

essential for framing of rules for live streaming of Court  

proceedings so as to ensure that the dignity and majesty of the  

Court is preserved, and, at the same time, address the  

concerns of privacy and confidentiality of the litigants or  

witnesses, matters relating to business confidentiality in  

commercial disputes including prohibition or restriction of  

access of proceedings or trials stipulated by the Central or  

State legislations, and, in some cases to preserve the larger  

public interest owing to the sensitivity of the case having  

potential to spring law and order situation or social unrest.  

These are matters which may require closer scrutiny. While  

doing so, the modules adopted by courts in other jurisdictions  

may be useful.  The position in some of the Courts in other  

jurisdictions (arranged in alphabetical order) as culled out  

from the material pointed out to us, is as follows:  

12    

I. Australia   

 1. High Court: Allows recordings of its proceedings to be  

published on its website2.  

Since 1st October, 2013, the High Court of Australia, which  

is its apex court, has made available on its website audio-

visual recordings of all full-court hearings held in Canberra3.   

a. The content of the coverage is vetted and recordings are  

posted usually within day or two of the hearing;  

b. The High Court has issued certain terms for use of such  

recordings on its website, which include restrictions on  

recording or copying without prior permission of the  

Court and retention of copyright over the proceedings by  

the Court4;  

c. The High Court permits members of the public to take  

photographs inside courtrooms when the Court is not in  

session, for private purposes. Audio-video recording of  

Court proceedings by private parties is expressly banned.  

The Court however, on certain occasions, permits film  

                                                           2 Available on the Australian High Court website at: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/recent- av-recordings    3 Media Release: Audio-Video Recordings of Full Court proceedings available on the  

Australian High Court website at:  

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=archive&task=view&listid=

6-judgment-delivery-notification&mailid=28-media-release     4 “Terms of use:  Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:  (1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit,  

broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any  proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court.   However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a  classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.  (2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute  the official record of the Court.  (3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.  By clicking "I agree/play" (when available), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.”  

Available on the Australian High Court website at: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/recent-av-

recordings

36    

cameras into the court room against the degree of risk  

that a fair trial might not ensue;   

ii. The trial court could always direct that some or all of  

the proceedings before it could not be broadcast or  

could only be broadcast in certain forms, like audio  

recording;  

iii. A judge could terminate coverage at any time upon a  

finding that the rules imposed by the judge had been  

violated or the substantial rights of individual  

participants or the rights to a fair trial would be  

prejudiced by such coverage if it was allowed to  

continue;  

iv. An accused person in a criminal trial could object to  

the presence of cameras in the courtroom. If the court  

determined that the objection raised by the accused  

was valid, it could exclude cameras from recording;   

v. Witnesses could also raise objections to being filmed.  

If the judge determined that a witness had a valid  

objection, alternatives to regular photographic or  

television coverage could be explored, like introducing  

special lighting techniques and electronic voice  

alteration, or merely by shielding the witness from the  

camera. Broadcast of testimony of an objecting  

witness could be delayed until after the trial is over;  

vi. Cameras would be permitted to film or televise all non-

objecting witnesses.   

vii. There would be no coverage of:   

 Communications between counsel and client or co-

counsel;   

 Bench discussions;   

 In-camera hearings.  

2. Lower Courts: In light of the Supreme Court decision in  

Breda, lower court criminal proceedings are also allowed to

40    

11. We may now advert to the comprehensive guidelines for  

live streaming of Court proceedings in Supreme Court, as  

suggested by the learned Attorney General for India, which  

read as follows:   

“Comprehensive Guidelines for Live streaming of Court  

proceedings in Supreme Court  

Brief Background  

1. That the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition seeks a  

declaration for permitting live streaming of Supreme Court  

case proceedings of constitutional and national importance  

having an impact on the public at large and a direction to  

make available the necessary infrastructure for live  

streaming and to frame guidelines for the determination of  

such cases which are of constitutional and national  

importance.   

2. That, in this regard, it is submitted that Courts in India are  

open to all members of the public who wish to attend the  

court proceedings. However, in practice, many interested  

persons are unable to witness the hearings on account of  

constraints of time, resources, or the ability to travel long  

distances to attend hearing on every single date. This is  

especially true in the case of litigants who have to travel long  

distances from far off States such as Kerala and States in  

the North-East and therefore run the risk of being excluded  

from attending court hearings involving cases filed by them.   

3. Furthermore, on miscellaneous days of hearing, the Apex  

Courts is highly congested, with practically no space  

available in the Courtrooms and in the public gallery to  

accommodate litigants, lawyers and law students and  

interns.   

41    

4. On account of such shortcomings, it may be advantageous to  

build an appropriate infrastructure for live-streaming or  

audio/video recording of court proceedings to enable the  

court proceedings to be viewed without the constraints of  

time or place. It would be ideal if a separate space is  

allocated by building a hall in the Court for lawyers, clients  

and interns to watch the live proceedings, so that, the  

crowds in the Court will be decongested. This will obviate the  

need for clients coming from far away distances and reduce  

their inconvenience in witnessing their case. This may also  

be one of the relevant factors for the Court to consider. Such  

a system would also enable the lawyers, law students and  

anyone interested in the workings of the highest court in the  

country to supplement their learning with practical study of  

cases of national importance, while ensuring that litigants  

have a true account of how decisions were made in their  

respective case. Such a system is in aid of the well accepted  

and respected tradition of „Open justice‟ i.e. justice should be  

administered in an open court.   

Recommendations:  

This Hon‟ble court may lay down the following guidelines to  

administer live streaming of Court proceedings:  

5. At the outset, it is submitted that Live Streaming of Court  

proceedings should be introduced as a pilot project in Court  

No.1 and only in Constitution bench references. The success  

of this project will determine whether or not live streaming  

should be introduced in all courts in the Supreme Court and  

in Courts pan India.   

 6. To ensure that all persons including litigants, journalists,  

interns, visitors and lawyers are able to view the live  

streaming of the proceedings, a media room should be  

designated in the premises of the court with necessary  

infrastructural facilities. This will also ensure that courts are  

decongested. Provisions may also be made available for the  

benefit of differently abled persons.   

42    

7. Apart from live streaming, the Supreme Court may, in the  

future, also provide for transcribing facilities and archive the  

audio-visual record of the proceedings to make the webcast  

accessible to litigants and other interested persons who are  

unable to witness the hearings on account of constraints of  

time, resources, or the ability to travel long distances to  

attend hearing on every single date. Such webcasts will also  

allow students of law to supplement their academic  

knowledge and gain practical insights into cases of national  

importance.  

 8. It is pertinent that this Hon‟ble Court lay down guidelines to  

safeguard and limit the broadcasting and recording of its  

proceedings to ensure better access to justice. Some of the  

recommendations are:  

 a. The Court must have the power to limit, temporarily suspend  

or disallow filming or broadcasting, if in its opinion, such  

measures are likely to interfere with the rights of the parties  

to a fair trial or otherwise interfere with the proper  

administration of justice.   

 b. The Court may law down guidelines/criterion to determine  

what cases constitute proceedings of constitutional and  

national importance to seek permission for broadcasting.   

 c. As held famously in the case of Scott vs. Scott, (1913) AC 417,  

“While the broad principle is that the Courts must  

administer justice in public, the chief object of Courts of  

justice must be to secure that justice is done”, broadcasting  

must not be permitted in the cases involving:  

 i. Matrimonial matters,  

ii. Matters involving interests of juveniles or the protection and  

safety of the private life of the young offenders,  

iii. Matters of National security,  

iv. To ensure that victims, witnesses or defendants can depose  

truthfully and without any fear. Special protection must be  

given to vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. It may provide

43    

for face distortion of the witness if she/he consents to the  

broadcast anonymously,   

v. To protect confidential or sensitive information, including all  

matters relating to sexual assault and rape, and   

vi. Matters where publicity would be antithetical to the  

administration of justice.   

vii. Cases which may provoke sentiments and arouse passion  

and provoke enmity among communities.  

  d. Use of the footage would be restricted for the purpose of  

news, current affairs and educational purposes and should  

not be used for commercial, promotion, light entertainment,  

satirical programs or advertising.   

 e. Without prior written authorization of the Supreme Court of  

India, live streaming or the webcast of the proceedings from  

the Supreme Court should not be reproduced, transmitted,  

uploaded, posted, modified, published or republished to the  

public.   

f. Any unauthorized usage of the live streaming and/or  

webcasts will be punishable as an offence under the Indian  

Copyright Act, 1957 and the Information Technology Act,  

2000 and any other provisions of the law in force. The law of  

contempt should apply to such proceedings. Prohibitions,  

fines and penalties may be provided for.  

  g. The Courts may also lay down rules of coverage to provide  

for the manner in which the filming may be done and the  

equipment that will be allowed in court.   

 h. Case management techniques should be introduced to  

ensure that matters are decided in a speedy manner and  

lawyers abide by time limits fixed prior to the hearing. A  

skeleton of arguments/Written submissions should be  

prepared and submitted to the Court by the lawyers prior to  

their arguments.  

 i. The Court of Appeal in England, in November 2013,  

introduced streaming its proceedings on YouTube. The  

telecast is deferred by 70 seconds with the Judge having the

44    

power to mute something said in the proceedings if he feels  

they are inappropriate for public consumption.  

 j. Like the Court of Appeal in England, the Supreme Court  

should also lay guidelines for having only two camera angles,  

one facing the judge and the other- the lawyer. The camera  

should not focus on the papers of the lawyer.”    

12. As aforesaid, Courts in India are ordinarily open to all  

members of public, who are interested in witnessing the court  

proceedings. However, due to logistical issues and  

infrastructural restrictions in courts, they may be denied the  

opportunity to witness live Court proceedings in propria  

persona. To consummate their aspirations, use of technology  

to relay or publicize the live court proceedings can be a way  

forward. By providing “virtual” access of live court proceedings  

to one and all, it will effectuate the right of access to justice or  

right to open justice and public trial, right to know the  

developments of law and including the right of justice at the  

doorstep of the litigants. Open justice, after all, can be more  

than just a physical access to the courtroom rather, it is  

doable even “virtually” in the form of live streaming of court  

proceedings and have the same effect.

45    

 13. Publication of court proceedings of the Supreme Court is  

a facet of the status of this Court as a Court of Record by  

virtue of Article 129 of the Constitution, whose acts and   

proceedings are enrolled for perpetual memory and testimony.  

Further, live streaming of court proceedings in the prescribed  

digital format would be an affirmation of the constitutional  

rights bestowed upon the public and the litigants in  

particular. While doing so, regard must be had to the fact that  

just as the dignity and majesty of the Court is inviolable, the  

issues regarding privacy rights of the litigants or witnesses  

whose cases are set down for hearing, as also other  

exceptional category of cases of which live streaming of  

proceedings may not be desirable as it may affect the cause of  

administration of justice itself, are matters which need to be  

identified and a proper regulatory framework must be provided  

in that regard by formulating rules in exercise of the power  

under Article 145 of the Constitution. It must be kept in mind  

that in case of conflict between competing Constitutional  

rights, a sincere effort must be made to harmonise such

46    

conflict in order to give maximum expression to each right  

while minimizing the encroachment on the other rights. We  

are conscious of the fact that in terms of Section 327 of CrPC  

and Section 153-B of CPC, only court-directed matters can be  

heard in camera and the general public can be denied access  

to or to remain in the court building used by the Court. Until  

such direction is issued by the Court, the hearing of the case  

is deemed to be an open court to which the public generally  

may have access. The access to the hearing by the general  

public, however, would be limited to the size and capacity of  

the court room. By virtue of live streaming of court  

proceedings, it would go public beyond the four walls of the  

court room to which, in a given case, the party or a witness to  

the proceedings may have genuine reservations and may claim  

right of privacy and dignity. Such a claim will have to be  

examined by the concerned Court and for which reason, a just  

regulatory framework must be provided for, including  

obtaining prior consent of the parties to the proceedings to be  

live streamed.   

47    

14. We generally agree with the comprehensive guidelines for  

live streaming of Court proceedings in the Supreme Court  

suggested by the learned Attorney General for India Shri K.K.  

Venugopal. The project of live streaming of the court  

proceedings of the Supreme Court on the “internet”  and/or on  

radio and TV through live audio-visual  

broadcasting/telecasting universally by an official agency,  

such as Doordarshan, having exclusive telecasting rights  

and/or official website/mobile application of the Court, must  

be implemented in a progressive, structured and phased  

manner, with certain safeguards to ensure that the purpose of  

live streaming of proceedings is achieved holistically and that  

it does not interfere with the administration of justice or the  

dignity and majesty of the Court hearing the matter and/or  

impinge upon any rights of the litigants or witnesses. The  

entire project will have to be executed in phases, with certain  

phases containing sub-phases or stages.  Needless to observe  

that before the commencement of first phase of the project,  

formal rules will have to be framed by this Court to  

incorporate the recommendations made by the learned

48    

Attorney General for India as noted in paragraph 11 above,  

while keeping in mind the basic issues, such as:-  

 (i) To begin with, only a specified category of cases or cases  

of constitutional and national importance being argued  

for final hearing before the Constitution Bench be live  

streamed as a pilot project. For that, permission of the  

concerned Court will have to be sought in writing, in  

advance, in conformity with the prescribed procedure.  

(ii) Prior consent of all the parties to the concerned  

proceedings must be insisted upon and if there is no  

unanimity between them, the concerned Court can take  

the appropriate decision in the matter for live streaming  

of the court proceedings of that case, after having due  

regard to the relevancy of the objections raised by the  

concerned party. The discretion exercised by the Court  

shall be treated as final. It must be non-justiciable and  

non-appealable.  

(iii) The concerned court would retain its power to revoke the  

permission at any stage of the proceedings suo motu or

49    

on an application filed by any party to the proceeding or  

otherwise, in that regard, if the situation so warrants,  

keeping in mind that the cause of administration of  

justice should not suffer in any manner.   

(iv) The discretion of the Court to grant or refuse to grant  

such permission will be, inter alia, guided by the  

following considerations:   

(a) unanimous consent of the parties involved,  

(b)  even after the parties give unanimous consent the  

Court will consider the sensitivity of the subject  

matter before granting such permission, but not  

limited to case which may arouse passion or social  

unrest amongst section of the public,   

(c) any other reason considered necessary or  

appropriate in the larger interest of administration  

of justice, including as to whether such broadcast  

will affect the dignity of the court itself or interfere  

with/prejudice the rights of the parties to a fair  

trial,  

50    

(v) There must be a reasonable time-delay (say ten minutes)  

between the live court proceedings and the broadcast, in  

order to ensure that any information which ought not to  

be shown, as directed by the Court, can be edited from  

being broadcast.   

 15. Until a full-fledged module and mechanism for live  

streaming of the court proceedings of the Supreme Court over  

the “internet” is evolved, it would be open to explore the  

possibility of implementation of Phase-I of live streaming in  

designated areas within the confines of this Court via  

“intranet” by use of allocated passwords, as a pilot project. The  

designated areas may include:  

(a) dedicated media room which could be accessible to  

the litigants, advocates, clerks and interns. Special  

provisions must be made to accommodate differently  

abled people;  

(b)  the Supreme Court Bar Association room/lounge;  

(c) the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association  

room/lounge;

51    

(d) the official chambers of the Attorney General,  

Solicitor General and Additional Solicitor Generals in  

the Supreme Court premises;  

(e) Advocates‟ Chambers blocks.   

(f) Press Reporters room.  

 16. It may be desirable to keep in mind other measures to be  

taken for efficient management of the entire project such as:   

(i) Appoint a technical committee comprising the  

Registrar (IT), video recording expert(s) and any  

other members as may be required, to develop  

technical guidelines for video recording and  

broadcasting court proceedings, including the  

specific procedure to be followed and the equipment  

to be used in that regard.  

(ii) Specialist video operator(s) be appointed to handle  

the live broadcast, who will work under the  

directions of the concerned Court. The coverage  

itself will be coordinated and supervised by a Court-

appointed officer.

52    

(iii) The focus of the cameras in the courtroom will be  

directed only towards two sets of people:  

a. The Justices/Bench hearing the matter and at such  

an angle so as to only show the anterior-facing side  

of the Justices, without revealing anything from  

behind the elevated platform/level on which the  

Justices sit or any of the Justices‟ papers, notes,  

reference material and/or books;  

b. The arguing advocate(s) in the matter and at such  

an angle so as to not to reveal in any way the  

contents of notes or reference material being relied  

upon by the arguing advocate(s). This will also apply  

to parties-in-person arguing their own matter.   

c. There shall be no broadcast of any interaction  

between the advocate and the client even during  

arguments.  

(iv) Subject to any alteration of camera angles for the  

purpose of avoiding broadcast of any of the  

aforestated papers, notes, reference materials,

53    

books and/or discussions, the camera angles will  

remain fixed over the course of the broadcast.  

(v) This Court shall introduce a case management  

system to ensure inter alia that advocates are  

allotted and adhere to a fixed time limit while  

arguing their matter to be live streamed.  

(vi) This Court must retain copyright over the  

broadcasted material and have the final say in  

respect of use of the coverage  material.  

(vii) Reproduction, re-broadcasting, transmission,  

publication, re-publication, copying, storage and/or  

modification of any part(s) of the original broadcast  

of Court proceedings, in any form, physical, digital  

or otherwise, must be prohibited. Any person  

engaging in such act(s) can be proceeded under, but  

not limited to, the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Information  

Technology Act, 2000 and the Contempt of Courts  

Act, 1971.  

54    

17. We reiterate that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 will  

have to be suitably amended to provide for the regulatory  

framework as per the contours delineated hereinabove. We  

may hasten to add that it would be open to frame such  

regulatory measures as may be found necessary for holistic  

live streaming of the court proceedings, without impinging  

upon the cause of administration of justice in any manner.   

 18. In conclusion, we hold that the cause brought before this  

Court by the protagonists in larger public interest, deserves  

acceptance so as to uphold the constitutional rights of public  

and the litigants, in particular. In recognizing that court  

proceedings ought to be live streamed, this Court is mindful of  

and has strived to balance the various interests regarding  

administration of justice, including open justice, dignity and  

privacy of the participants to the proceedings and the majesty  

and decorum of the Courts.   

19.  As a result, we allow these writ petitions and  

interventionists‟ applications with the aforementioned  

observations and hope that the relevant rules will be

55    

formulated expeditiously and the first phase project executed  

in right earnest by all concerned.  Ordered accordingly.  

20. While parting, we must place on record our sincere  

appreciation for the able assistance and constructive  

suggestions given by the learned counsel and the parties in-

person appearing in this case.   

.………………………….CJI.        (Dipak Misra)   

…………………………..….J.                (A.M. Khanwilkar)  

New Delhi;  

September 26, 2018.  

1  

REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1232  OF 2017  

SWAPNIL TRIPATHI         .....PETITIONER  

VERSUS  

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                   .....RESPONDENT   (THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL)      

             WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 66  OF 2018    

WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 861  OF 2018    

AND  

WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 892  OF 2018   

2  

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T  

Index to the judgment  

A  Open Justice  

B Indian Jurisprudence  

C Technology and Open Court  

C.1      ICT in Indian courts  

C.2  Technology and Implementation   

        C.3 Platforms created for service delivery    

C.4 National Judicial Data Grid   

C.5 Other facilities created to speed up justice delivery   

C.6 Concept of Video Streaming/Web Cast   

C.7      Virtual reality as an extension of the open court  

D Comparative Law  

E Model guidelines for broadcasting of the proceedings and other Judicial events of  

the Supreme Court of India

PART A   

3  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J  

A Open Justice  

1 The issue in this batch of cases is whether there should be live  

dissemination of proceedings before this Court with the aid of Information and  

Communications Technology (ICT). The basis of the petitions is that this would  

enable litigants and society to have wide access to judicial proceedings. It is  

urged that cases of constitutional and national importance have a significant  

impact on the social fabric. Citizens have a right to know about and to follow  

court proceedings. It has been submitted that live or online transmission of court  

proceedings with the aid of ICT enabled tools will subserve the cause of access  

to justice.      

2 Our legal system subscribes to the principle of open justice. The prayer  

for live-streaming of courtroom proceedings has its genesis in this principle.  

Live-streaming will allow real time access to courtroom proceedings to litigants  

and to every member of the society.   

PART A   

4  

3 Open justice is a long-established principle of common law systems. It  

rests on a high pedestal in a liberal democracy as ‘a sound and very sacred part  

of the Constitution of the country and the administration of justice…’1   

Jeremy Bentham propounded the idea of open justice in the late eighteenth  

century while designing principles for establishments in which persons are to  

be kept under inspection:   

 “...the doors of all public establishments ought to be, thrown  

wide open to the body of the curious at large- the great open  

committee of the tribunal of the world.”2  

4 Although Bentham wrote these words in the larger context of public  

institutions, they apply on equal terms to the theory of open justice. Bentham in  

his “Draught of Code for the Organization of the Judicial Establishment”  

codified the principle of open justice as:   

 “Article XVIII- Judicial proceedings, from the first step to the  

last inclusive, shall, in all cases but the secret ones herein  

specified, be carried out with the utmost degree of publicity  

possible.”3  

According to Bentham, secret (or in-camera) proceedings were to be carried  

out in the judge’s chamber.4 He also prescribed open justice for trials by the  

National Assembly Courts, (which, in his Code, were courts constituted to hear  

complaints against any metropolitan judge):  

                                                           1 House of Lords in Scott v Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 at 473.  2 Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John  

Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 volumes, volume 4, at page 46.  3 Ibid at page 288.  4 Ibid at page 303.

PART A   

5  

“Article III- Such trial shall be conducted from beginning to end,  

with open doors and with the utmost possible degree of  

publicity.”5  

The principle underlying open justice was formulated by Lord Chief Justice  

Hewart:  

 “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and  

undoubtedly be seen to be done.”6  

In R (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and  

Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Judge CJ draws a link between open justice and  

democratic values:  

“...the principle of open justice represents an element of  

democratic accountability, and the vigorous manifestation of  

the principle of freedom of expression. Ultimately it supports  

the rule of law itself.”7    

 5 Legal scholars indicate that the principle of open justice encompasses  

several aspects that are central to the fair administration of justice and the rule  

of law.8 It has both procedural and substantive dimensions, which are equally  

important. Open justice comprises of several precepts:   

(i) The entitlement of an interested person to attend court as a spectator;  

                                                           5 Ibid at page 300.  6 King’s Bench, Division Court in R v Sussex [1923], All ER Rep 233.  7 Court of Appeal, England and Wales in R (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth  

Affairs, [2010] 3 WLR 554.  8 Cunliffe Emma, "Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches", (2012) 40 Fed L Rev 385.

PART A   

6  

(ii) The promotion of full, fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings;  

(iii) The duty of judges to give reasoned decisions; and  

(iv) Public access to judgments of courts.9   

The principle of an open court is a significant procedural dimension of the  

broader concept of open justice. Open courts allow the public to view courtroom  

proceedings. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “open court” as follows:  

 “… a court to which the public have a right to be admitted…  

This term may mean either a court which has been formally  

convened and declared open for the transaction of its proper  

judicial business, or a court which is freely open to  

spectators…”10  

The idea of open courts is crucial to maintaining public confidence in the  

administration of justice:  

 “The public must be able to enter any court to see that justice  

is being done in that court, by a tribunal conscientiously doing  

its best to do justice according to law.”11   

Open courts ensure a check on the process of adjudication in judicial  

proceedings. Bentham regarded publicity about courtroom proceedings as a  

mechanism to prevent improbity of judges:  

                                                           9  Ibid.  10 Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990, page 1091. The Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, 2014, page 1263  defines an “open court” thus: “1. A court that is in session, presided over by a judge, attended by the parties and  their attorneys, and engaged in judicial business… The term is distinguished from a court that is hearing evidence  in camera or from judge that is exercising merely magisterial powers. 2. A court session that the public is free to  attend…”  11 Supra note 7.

PART A   

7  

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to  

exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps  

the judge himself, while trying, under trial.   

... It is through publicity alone that justice becomes the mother  

of security. By publicity, the temple of justice is converted into  

a school of the first order…”12  

6 Lord Diplock, speaking for the House of Lords in AG v Leveller  

Magazine, remarked that open courts are a safeguard against judicial  

arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy. 13  Open courts, in his view, help build public  

confidence in the administration of justice.14 The public’s trust in the judicial  

system depends on their perception of how courts function. Open courts make  

it possible for the public to develop reasonable perceptions about the judiciary,  

by enabling them to directly observe judicial behaviour, and the processes and  

outcomes of a case.   

In the decision of the High Court of Australia, in Grollo v Palmer, Gummow J  

dwelt on the idea of open courts:  

 “An essential attribute of the judicial power of the  

Commonwealth is the resolution of such controversies ... so as  

to provide final results which are delivered in public after a  

public hearing, and, where a judge is the tribunal of fact as well  

as law, are preceded by grounds for decision which are  

animated by reasoning. An objective of the exercise of the  

judicial power in each particular case is the satisfaction of the  

parties to the dispute and the general public that, by these  

procedures, justice has both been done and been seen to be  

done.” 15  

                                                           12 Supra note 2 at page 316-317.  13 House of Lords, as per Lord Diplock in AG v Leveller Magazine, [1979] AC 440, at page 450.  14 Ibid.  15 High Court of Australia, as per Gummow J in Grollo v Palmer, [1995] HCA 2.

PART A   

8  

The Ministry of Justice in the UK, in its proposal to permit broadcasting of court  

proceedings, has succinctly articulated the need for open courts:   

“Few people have direct experience of court proceedings, and  

overall public understanding of the criminal justice system is  

limited. Most court sittings take place when many people are  

at work. Many people, therefore, currently base their views on  

how the system is portrayed on television, or in films. These  

dramatised accounts rarely portray what happens in court  

accurately. With the range of technology now available, it  

should be easier for people to access better information on  

court proceedings.” 16   

 In the decision of the US Supreme Court in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v  

Virginia, Burger CJ observed:   

“The early history of open trials in part reflects the widespread  

acknowledgment, long before there were behavioural  

scientists, that public trials had significant community  

therapeutic value…  

… People in an open society do not demand infallibility from  

their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they  

are prohibited from observing.”17  

7 Public confidence in the judiciary and in the process of judicial decision  

making is crucial for preserving the rule of law and to maintain the stability of  

the social fabric. Peoples’ access to the court signifies that the public is willing  

to have disputes resolved in court and to obey and accept judicial orders. Open  

courts effectively foster public confidence by allowing litigants and members of

                                                           16 Ministry of Justice, UK, Proposals to allow the broadcasting, filming, and recording of selected court proceedings,  

making recommendations, 2012. Available at:   https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217307/broa dcasting-filming-recording-courts.pdf   

17 Supreme Court of United States in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, 448 US 555 (1980).

PART B   

9  

the public to view courtroom proceedings and ensure that the judges apply the  

law in a fair and impartial manner.    

B Indian Jurisprudence  

8 The concept of open courts is not alien to the Indian legal system. The  

Constitution adopts the concept in Article 145(4), which states that the Supreme  

Court shall be an open court:  

“(4) No judgment shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save  

in open Court, and no report shall be made under Article 143  

save in accordance with an opinion also delivered in open  

Court.”  

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and the Code of Criminal  

Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) extend the principle of open courts to all civil and  

criminal courts in India. Section 153-B of the CPC provides that every civil court  

which tries a suit shall be deemed to be an open court:     

“Section 153-B. Place of trial to be deemed to be open  

court.-  

The place in which any Civil Court is held for the purpose of  

trying any suit shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which  

the public generally may have access so far as the same can  

conveniently contain them:  

Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, order at  

any stage of any inquiry into or trial of any particular case, that  

the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have  

access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the  

Court.”  

PART B   

10  

Similarly, Section 327 of the CrPC also mandates criminal courts to be open:    

“Section 327. - Court to be open.-  

“[(1)] The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the  

purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed  

to be an open Court, to which the public generally may have  

access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them:  

Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he  

thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any  

particular case, that the public generally, or any particular  

person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room  

or building used by the Court.”  

Hence, all courts in India are open to the public and function as open courts,  

except when the administration of justice requires public access to the court to  

be restricted. The principle of open courts in India recognises exceptions which  

are in the interest of fair administration of justice.   

9 Various judgments of this Court have reinforced the importance of open  

courts.  The earliest and most significant judgment on this aspect is the decision  

of a nine-judge Bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra18  

(“Mirajkar”). While upholding an oral order of the High Court prohibiting the  

media to publish the evidence of a witness in a defamation suit, the majority  

emphasised the importance of open courts. Chief Justice Gajendragadkar,  

speaking for the majority observed:  

“20... It is well settled that in general, all cases brought before  

the courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be heard in  

open court. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential  

for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial  

                                                           18 (1966) 3 SCR 744.

PART B   

11  

held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a  

check against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a  

powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the  

fairness, objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of  

justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice is of  

such great significance that there can be no two opinions on  

the broad proposition that in discharging their functions as  

judicial tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open  

and must permit the public admission to the court-room.”   

Justice Gajendragadkar then quoted from Bentham (as noted in Scott v  

Scott19):  

“20... In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in  

every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity  

has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice  

operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity  

is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and  

surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge  

himself while trying under trial (in the sense that) the security  

of securities is publicity.”   

Even in his dissenting opinion, Justice Hidayatullah (as the learned judge then  

was) agreed with the majority on the importance of an open court system:  

“90. …As we have fortunately inherited the English tradition of  

holding trials (with a few exceptions to which I shall refer later)  

in public, I shall begin with the English practice. It has always  

been the glory of the English system as opposed to the  

Continental, that all trials are held ostiis apertis, that is, with  

open doors. This principle is old… it is a direct guarantee of  

civil liberty and it moved Bentham to say that it was the soul of  

Justice and that in proportion as publicity had place, the checks  

on judicial injustice could be found.…”   

                                                           19  Supra note 1.   

PART B   

12  

Justice J C Shah elaborated on open justice but also recognised the need to  

restrict access to protect the administration of justice, in cases where it  

becomes necessary:   

“129...Hearing in open court of causes is of the utmost  

importance for maintaining confidence of the public in the  

impartial administration of justice: it operates as a wholesome  

check upon judicial behaviour as well as upon the conduct of  

the contending parties and their witnesses. But hearing of a  

cause in public which is only to secure administration of justice  

untainted must yield to the paramount object of administration  

of justice. If excessive publicity itself operates as an instrument  

of injustice, the court may not be slow, if it is satisfied that it is  

necessary so to do to put such restraint upon publicity as is  

necessary to secure the court's primary object...”   

Quoting Hegel in “Philosophy of Right,” Justice Bachawat added that:  

“140 … A court of justice is a public forum. It is through  

publicity that the citizens are convinced that the court renders  

even-handed justice, and it is, therefore, necessary that the  

trial should be open to the public and there should be no  

restraint on the publication of the report of the court  

proceedings. The publicity generates public confidence in the  

administration of justice. In rare and exceptional cases only,  

the court may hold the trial behind closed doors, or may forbid  

the publication of the report of its proceedings during the  

pendency of the litigation.  

141. ...Hegel in his Philosophy of Right maintained that judicial  

proceedings must be public, since the aim of the Court is  

justice, which is a universal belonging to all.”  

Key takeaways emerge from the opinions in Mirajkar:  

(i) Open courts serve as an instrument of inspiring public confidence in  

the administration of justice;   

(ii) Open courts act as a check on the judiciary;

PART B   

13  

(iii) Publicity of the judicial process is the soul of justice;  

(iv) Open justice must yield to the paramount object of the administration  

of justice, in case it becomes necessary to restrict access in the facts  

of a particular case; and  

(v) Open courts are essential for the objective and fair administration of  

justice.   

10 Almost two decades later, in Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal  

Corporation,20 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that eviction of slum-

dwellers violated their right to earn a livelihood. Chief Justice Y V Chandrachud  

reiterated the value of a hearing, in emphasising the principle that justice must  

also be seen to be done:  

“47...justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen  

to be done… The appearance of injustice is the denial of  

justice. It is the dialogue with the person likely to be affected  

by the proposed action which meets the requirement that  

justice must also be seen to be done...  

...Whatever its outcome, such a hearing represents a valued  

human interaction in which the affected person experiences at  

least the satisfaction of participating in the decision that vitally  

concerns her, and perhaps the separate satisfaction of  

receiving an explanation of why the decision is being made in  

a certain way. Both the right to be heard from, and the right to  

be told why, are analytically distinct from the right to secure a  

different outcome; these rights to interchange express the  

elementary idea that to be a person, rather than a thing, is at  

least to be consulted about what is done with one. Justice  

Frankfurter captured part of this sense of procedural justice  

when he wrote that the “validity and moral authority of a  

conclusion largely depend on the mode by which it was  

reached…No better instrument has been devised for arriving  

at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice  

of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. Nor has a  

                                                           20 (1985) 3 SCC 545.

PART B   

14  

better way been found for generating the feeling, so important  

to a popular government, that justice has been done.”  

These observations have been made in the context of analysing the importance  

of the right to be heard. But Olga Tellis emphasised that not only the ends, but  

also the means of justice are important. The purpose behind an open court  

system is to grant the affected party and the public an opportunity to observe  

justice being dispensed. The process by which justice is rendered has an  

important bearing on the confidence which it inculcates in society. Knowledge  

of the process is a confidence builder.  

11 In Life Insurance Corporation of India v Prof. Manubhai D. Shah,21  

this Court examined the right claimed by a citizen to contribute to an in-house  

magazine published by an instrumentality of the State. Writing for the two-judge  

Bench, Justice A.M. Ahmadi (as the learned Chief Justice then was) dwelt on  

the significance of disseminating information in a democracy:   

“8. ...The print media, the radio and the tiny screen play the  

role of public educators, so vital to the growth of a healthy  

democracy...  

...It cannot be gainsaid that modern communication mediums  

advance public interest by informing the public of the events  

and developments that have taken place and thereby  

educating the voters, a role considered significant for the  

vibrant functioning of a democracy. Therefore, in any set-up,  

more so in a democratic set-up like ours, dissemination of  

news and views for popular consumption is a must and any  

attempt to deny the same must be frowned upon unless it falls  

within the mischief of Article 19(2) of the Constitution...”  

                                                           21 (1992) 3 SCC 637.

PART B   

15  

12 More recently, in Mohd. Shahabuddin v State of Bihar,22 a two-judge  

Bench of this Court was examining a challenge to a notification by the Patna  

High Court declaring the premises for conducting a trial. Justice M K Sharma, in  

his concurring opinion, described open courts:   

“215... In my considered view an “open court” is a court to  

which general public has a right to be admitted and access to  

the court is granted to all the persons desirous of entering the  

court to observe the conduct of the judicial proceedings...”  

   Through these judicial decisions, this Court has recognised the importance of  

open courtrooms as a means of allowing the public to view the process of  

rendering of justice. First-hand access to court hearings enables the public and  

litigants to witness the dialogue between the judges and the advocates and to  

form an informed opinion about the judicial process.  

   13 The impact of open courts in our country is diminished by the fact that a  

large segment of the society rarely has an opportunity to attend court  

proceedings. This is due to constraints like poverty, illiteracy, distance, cost  and  

lack of awareness about court proceedings. Litigants depend on information  

provided by lawyers about what has transpired during the course of hearings.  

Others, who may not be personally involved in a litigation, depend on the  

information provided about judicial decisions in newspapers and in the  

                                                           22 (2010) 4 SCC 653.

PART C   

16  

electronic media.  When the description of cases is accurate and  

comprehensive, it serves the cause of open justice. However, if a report on a  

judicial hearing is inaccurate, it impedes the public’s right to know. Courts,  

though open in law and in fact, become far removed from the lives of individual  

citizens. This is anomalous because courts exist primarily to provide justice to  

them.  

C Technology and Open Court  

14 In the present age of technology, it is no longer sufficient to rely solely on  

the media to deliver information about the hearings of cases and their  

outcomes. Technology has become an inevitable facet of all aspects of life.  

Internet penetration and increase in the use of smart phones has revolutionised  

how we communicate. As on 31 March 2018, India had a total of 1,206.22  

million telecom subscribers and 493.96 million internet users.23 Technology can  

enhance public access, ensure transparency and pave the way for active citizen  

involvement in the functioning of state institutions. Courts must also take the aid  

of technology to enhance the principle of open courts by moving beyond  

physical accessibility to virtual accessibility.   

                                                           23 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators January-March,  

2018. Available at: https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIReport27062018_0.pdf

PART C   

17  

15 The importance of making justice accessible to the common citizen in its  

truest sense was explained by Lord Neuberger in his Judicial Studies Board  

speech (2011):           

“…if justice is seen to be done it must be understandable.  

Judgments must be open not only in the sense of being  

available to the public, but, so far as possible given the  

technical and complex nature of much of our law; they must  

also be clear and easily interpretable by lawyers. And also to  

non-lawyers. In an age when it seems more likely than ever  

that citizens will have to represent themselves, this is  

becoming increasingly important.”24  

16 This Court and the High Courts in India have pro-actively adopted  

technology to make the judicial process more accessible, organised,  

transparent, and simple. For instance, many courts in the country, including this  

Court, now have display boards in the court premises and on their official  

websites which enable legal practitioners and the public to view the progress of  

the cause list. This Court and the High Courts maintain websites where they  

upload cause lists, daily orders, and judgments. They also maintain an archive  

of previous judgments, allowing users to search for a specific judgment using  

various inputs.   

 17 Recent judgments of this Court also indicate the willingness of this Court  

to adapt to modern technology for the advancement of justice. In Krishna Veni  

Nagam v Harish Nagam, 25  this Court had taken into consideration  

                                                           24 Neuberger, Lord of Abbotbury (Master of Rolls) 2011, ‘Open justice unbound?’, Judicial Studies Board Annual  

Lecture, 16 March 2011. Available at: http://netk.net.au/judges/neuberger2.pdf  25 (2017) 4 SCC 150.

PART C   

18  

technological developments to regulate the use of video conferencing for  

certain categories of cases. Justice A.K. Goel on behalf of himself and Justice  

Lalit directed:   

”16. The advancement of technology ought to be utilised also  

for service on parties or receiving communication from the  

parties. Every District Court must have at least one e-mail ID.  

Administrative instructions for directions can be issued to  

permit the litigants to access the court, especially when litigant  

is located outside the local jurisdiction of the Court. A  

designated officer/manager of a District Court may suitably  

respond to such e-mail in the manner permitted as per the  

administrative instructions. Similarly, a manager/information  

officer in every District Court may be accessible on a notified  

telephone during notified hours as per the instructions. These  

steps may, to some extent, take care of the problems of the  

litigants.”  

In Santhini v Vijaya Venketesh, 26 where this Court was re-considering the  

issue of permitting video-conferencing for matrimonial disputes, one of us (D Y  

Chandrachud, J.) in his dissenting opinion, discussed the importance of using  

technology to enhance the delivery of justice:   

“89. Technology must also be seen as a way of bringing  

services into remote areas to deal with problems associated  

with the justice delivery system. With the increasing cost of  

travelling and other expenses, videoconferencing can provide  

a cost-effective and efficient alternative. Solutions based on  

modern technology allow the court to enhance the quality and  

effectiveness of the administration of justice. The use of  

technology can maximise efficiency and develop innovative  

methods for delivering legal services. Technology-based  

solutions must be adopted to facilitate access to justice...  

Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigant. We must  

embrace technology and not retard its application, to make the  

administration of justice efficient.”  

                                                           26 (2018) 1 SCC 1.

PART C   

19  

C.1 ICT in Indian courts27  

Technology has made modernity possible. The interplay between technology  

and law has allowed dissemination of legal information with a veritable click of  

a button. We have designed processes and systems to suit the unique  

requirements of our judicial system. The Indian judiciary has incorporated  

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) under the aegis of the e-

Courts Integrated Mission Mode Project (e-Courts Project). This has been a  

part of the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) which has been implemented  

in all High Courts and the District Courts of India. It was based on the 'National  

Policy and Action Plan for Implementation of Information and Communication  

Technology’ prepared by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India in  

2005. The 2005 e-Committee Report proposed three phases for  

implementation of the e-Courts Project.   

The e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India and the Department of Justice,  

Government of India, through a proper management of the e-Courts Project  

have ensured efficiency in the judicial process across 21,000 courts in the  

district judiciary in India. Phase-I of the e-Courts Project was approved in 2010  

and enabled computerisation of 14,249 courts in the district judiciary by 2015.  

The objective of the ongoing Phase—II of this project is to enhance judicial  

                                                           27 The websites of Department of Justice, Government of India (doj.gov.in/) and E-courts services  

(ecourts.gov.in/) contains fair amount of information on the ongoing e-Courts Project.

PART C   

20  

service delivery for litigants and lawyers by improving infrastructure and  

providing technology-enabled judicial processes. It involves improved ICT  

infrastructure, videoconferencing, improved access across seven platforms  

including a web portal, app, judicial service centers and kiosks. The e-Courts  

Project also includes capacity building of officers, ICT provisioning of District  

Legal Service Authorities, Taluka Legal Service Committees, State Judicial  

Academies and judicial process re-engineering. Currently, the e-Courts project  

caters to more than 21,000 courts and has been implemented in more than 600  

districts, 3,000 court complexes and 6,400 establishments.  

C.2 Technology and Implementation  

One of the objectives of the e-Courts Project is to make the ICT infrastructure  

comprising of computer hardware, Local Area Network (LAN), Wide Area  

Network (WAN), information kiosks, UPS, renewable energy-based power  

backup and other peripherals available in the district judiciary.   

The e-Courts Project is developed on Open Source Technology by the National  

Informatics Centre (NIC), a Central Government department under the Union  

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. A single unified Case  

Information System (CIS) Software has been developed and made available to  

the entire district judiciary in India, for catering to the diversified requirements  

of the country in terms of local procedures, practices and languages. CIS

PART C   

21  

Version 3.0 has been made available in all the district and taluka courts. 15  

High Courts are already equipped with CIS Version 1.0.   

The e-Committee carried out extensive capacity building exercises to train  

judicial officers and administrative staff. The project is manned and managed  

by the court staff and the staff is trained in the use of computers. Some of them  

are also selected to be trained as system administrators.   

C.3  Platforms created for service delivery  

(i) e-Courts Portal: Online mechanisms 28  (websites) are available for  

stakeholders such as litigants, advocates, government agencies, and  

the police to track case status, view cause lists, judgments and daily  

orders. The services.ecourts.gov.in portal is a one stop access point  

where a person can locate a case from any court across the country by  

using different search criteria available on the website. Data is available  

on the portal for disposed of and pending civil and criminal cases across  

the country. The portal also contains judgments and orders of the district  

judiciary.   

(ii)    Mobile App: e-Courts Services mobile app available on Android and iOS  

provides facility for all stakeholders including advocates and parties, to  

                                                           28 Online services are available at –(i) ecourts.gov.in, (ii) services.ecourts.gov.in and (iii) districts.ecourts.gov.in

PART C   

22  

create a portfolio of cases in which they are associated and track them for  

future alerts. A facility to search the case by a QR Code is also provided  

and the App has been downloaded multiple times.  

(iii)   SMS Push: Litigants and advocates get an SMS alert on their cell phones,  

in case of any adjournment, scrutiny, registration, transfer of case,  

disposal, uploading of orders, etc.  

(iv)  SMS Pull: This facility allows advocates and litigants to send the CNR  

number (which is a unique number tagged for every single case in the  

country) and receive a response with the current status of the case.   

(v)  Automated e-Mails: Litigants, advocates and police stations receive  

information on regular e-mails in relation to the cause lists, transfer of  

cases, disposal, copies of orders and judgments.   

(vi)   Touch Screen Kiosks and Service Centre: Dissemination of case status  

has been made simple with the installation of touch screen kiosks in  

various court complexes across the country. This allows litigants and  

advocates to view their case status at the touch of a button. The same  

information can also be obtained from Judicial Service Centres established  

in court complexes.   

(vii)   E-Payment: In order to facilitate ease of payments, online payment of court  

fees, fines, penalties and judicial deposits through the epay.ecourts.gov.in  

has been facilitated. Citizens can make payments online without the use  

of cheques, cash or stamps, with the help of this portal.  

PART C   

23  

(viii)   E-Filing: For convenience, facility for online filing of cases and case papers  

with the court registry has been provided. This facility is integrated with  

standard application software across all the districts and subordinate  

courts.   

C.4 National Judicial Data Grid   

The NJDG is a public portal that provides a database of pending and disposed  

of cases in various High Courts and District Courts across India. The NJDG  

portal njdg.ecourts.gov.in provides transparency in the judicial system to all  

citizens by allowing them to view statistics of cases pending before various  

courts. The World Bank has also acknowledged NJDG as a significant  

innovation. It serves as a national judicial data warehouse that may be used to  

shape legislative policy.  

C.5 Other facilities created to speed up justice delivery   

(i)  NSTEP: National Software and Tracking of Electronic Process, is a  

mechanism that consists of a centralised service tracking application and  

a mobile app for court bailiffs. NSTEP has been created for speedy delivery  

of process and to reduce inordinate delays in judicial procedures. The  

mobile app, equipped with GPS location tracking assists the bailiffs in real-

time and transparent tracking of services. The mobile app also has the

PART C   

24  

facility to record the photo and signature of the receiver. In case of non-

service of notice or communication, the mobile application instantly  

communicates it to the central NSTEP server.   

(ii)  Video Conferencing: In an effort to speed up the judicial process, video-

conferencing facilities connecting courts and jails have been established  

in 488 courts and 342 jails across India.  

C.6 Concept of Video-Streaming/Web-Cast   

Advancement in technology and increased internet penetration has facilitated  

transmission of live or pre-recorded video feed to devices like computers, tabs  

and mobiles. Live-webcast or streaming of court proceedings in real time can  

be implemented through available technological solutions. Live-webcast or  

streaming is the fastest method for communicating and is most suited for  

connecting geographically dispersed audiences.   

C.7 Virtual reality as an extension of the open court    

 The time has come for this Court to take a step further in adopting technology  

and to enable live-streaming of its proceedings. Live-streaming of courtroom  

proceedings is an extension of the principle of open courts. Live-streaming will  

have the ability to reach a wide number of audiences with the touch of a button.

PART C   

25  

It will enable litigants and members of the public to have a virtual experience of  

courtroom proceedings even outside the courtroom premises.    

18 There are multiple reasons why live-streaming will be beneficial to the  

judicial system:  

 a. The technology of live-streaming injects radical immediacy into  

courtroom proceedings. Each hearing is made public within seconds of  

its occurrence. It enables viewers to have virtual access to courtroom  

proceedings as they unfold;   

 b. Introduction of live-streaming will effectuate the public’s right to know  

about court proceedings. It will enable those affected by the decisions of  

the Court to observe the manner in which judicial decisions are made. It  

will help bring the work of the judiciary to the lives of citizens;   

 c. Live-streaming of courtroom proceedings will reduce the public’s reliance  

on second-hand narratives to obtain information about important  

judgments of the Court and the course of judicial hearings. Society will  

be able to view court proceedings first hand and form reasoned and  

educated opinions about the functioning of courts. This will help reduce  

misinformation and misunderstanding about the judicial process;   

 d. Viewing court proceedings will also serve an educational purpose. Law  

students will be able to observe and learn from the interactions between

PART C   

26  

the Bar and the Bench. The archives will constitute a rich source for  

aspiring advocates and academicians to study legal advocacy  

procedures, interpretation of the law, and oratory skills, among other  

things. It will further promote research into the institutional functioning of  

the courts. Live-streaming and broadcasting will also increase the reach  

of the courts as it can penetrate to every part of the country;  

 e. Live-streaming will enhance the rule of law and promote better  

understanding of legal governance as part of the functioning of  

democracy;     

 f. Live-streaming will remove physical barriers to viewing court proceedings  

by enabling the public to view proceedings from outside courtroom  

premises. This will also reduce the congestion which is currently plaguing  

courtrooms. It will reduce the need for litigants to travel to the courts to  

observe the proceedings of their cases;   

g. Live-streaming is a significant instrument of enhancing the accountability  

of judicial institutions and of all those who participate in the judicial  

process. Delay in the dispensation of justice is a matter of serious  

concern. Live-streaming of court proceedings will enable members of the  

public to know of the causes of adjournments and the reasons why  

hearings are delayed; and  

PART D   

27  

h. Above all, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Live-streaming as an  

extension of the principle of open courts will ensure that the interface  

between a court hearing with virtual reality will result in the dissemination  

of information in the widest possible sense, imparting transparency and  

accountability to the judicial process.       

Major common law jurisdictions across the globe have already embraced the  

concept of live-streaming and broadcasting courtroom proceedings. It may be  

useful to look at the evolution of the concept in a few jurisdictions, and the  

practices followed by them.   

D Comparative Law  

 19 This section takes a measured look at the development of the principle  

of open justice in common law and other jurisdictions. It examines how courts  

in other countries have addressed concerns of privacy, confidentiality and  

sensitivity of litigants, witnesses and cases.  

(i) United Kingdom  

The Supreme Court of UK permits broadcasting of its courtroom proceedings.29  

The Eighth Practice Direction of the Supreme Court permits “video footage of  

                                                           29 The live-streaming proceedings of Supreme Court of United Kingdom. Available at:  https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html  

PART D   

28  

proceedings before the Court to be broadcast where this does not affect the  

administration of justice.”30 Three national broadcasters- BBC, ITN, and Sky  

News31 are permitted to film and broadcast the Supreme Court proceedings, “in  

accordance with the protocol which has been agreed with.” 32  The protocol  

prohibits recording of certain types of proceedings like private discussions  

between litigants and their counsel.33 The footage is only allowed to be used for  

informational purposes in programs like news, current affairs, education, and  

legal training. 34  However, any broadcasting which may detract from the  

seriousness or integrity of the proceedings, like entertainment programmes,  

satirical programmes, political party broadcasts, and advertising or promotion,  

is not permitted.35 Further, any still images are always required to be used “in a  

way that has regard to the dignity of the Court and its functions as a working  

body.”36   

Sky News airs live broadcasts of the UK Supreme Court’s hearings.37 By the  

end of 2011, the UK Supreme Court permitted journalists to use live text-based  

communications, including social media platform Twitter, during court  

hearings.38 The presiding judge, however, retains full discretion to prohibit such  

                                                           30  The Supreme Court of United Kingdom, Practice Direction 8, para 8.17.1. Available at     

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/practice-direction-08.pdf  31 Supra note 16.  32 Supra note 30.  33 Ibid.  34 Supra note 16.  35 Ibid.  36 Ibid.  37 Ibid.  38 Ibid.

PART D   

29  

communications in the interest of justice.39 The UK Supreme Court has its own  

Twitter handle (@UKSupremeCourt) which it uses to update the public about  

its judgments. 40  It also has a YouTube channel where it showcases short  

summaries of judgments read out by the judges.41  

In 2013, the UK permitted audio-visual coverage of the Court of Appeals (Civil  

and Criminal).42 The broadcast is subject to certain limitations - (a) only the  

judgments and lawyers’ arguments are permitted to be filmed. Victims and  

witnesses are not recorded; and (b) live broadcasts are delivered with a seventy  

seconds delay.43 According to British legal commentator, Joshua Rozenberg,  

the seventy seconds delay is favourable and necessary because:  

“That gives everyone involved just over a minute to work out  

that something should not be heard or seen in public before the  

recording leaves the courtroom. The problem could be mild  

profanity…Somebody might quote information that is protected  

by a court order or is unreportable for some other reason.  

Perhaps the cameras might catch a glimpse of someone  

whose face must not be included in court broadcasts, such as  

the appellant or a witness.”44  

The court retains control over the live broadcast. A single video-journalist is  

authorised to record and regulate the live proceedings 45 and is bound by the  

                                                           39 Ibid.  40 The official Twitter handle of UK Supreme Court. Available at: https://twitter.com/uksupremecourt  41 The official YouTube handle of UK Supreme Court. Available at:      https://www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt  42 Ravid, Itay, Tweeting #Justice: Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceedings in a World of Shifting Technology  (March 9, 2017). 35(1) Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 41 (2017).  

43 Ibid.  44 Joshua Rozenberg, Televising the Courts: The Time Has Come, The Guardian, 23 October 2013. Available at  https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/oct/23/televising-courts-live-broadcasting-joshua-rozenberg  

45 Ibid.

PART D   

30  

court’s orders.46 Only the appointed journalist or his substitute is permitted to  

take pictures in court.47 The appointed journalist is jointly employed by the four  

media groups which are funding the project- Sky News, ITN, BBC and the Press  

Association news agency.48 Only the appointed journalist or his substitute is  

permitted to take pictures in court.49 Although the appointed journalist has the  

permission to film any of the fifteen courtrooms in which the Court of Appeals  

may sit, practically, the media organisations pick only one court at a time for live  

broadcast.50   

The Court of Appeals was opened for broadcasting upon the recommendations  

of the Ministry of Justice, in its 2012 Report.51 Making a case for extending  

technological change to the remaining courts in the UK, the Ministry of Justice  

had reasoned that:  

“In principle the majority of our courts are open to all members  

of the public who wish to attend, but in practice very few people  

have the time or opportunity to see what happens in our courts  

in person. In addition, the extent of press coverage of court  

cases, particularly in local courts has declined in recent years.  

In cases of particular interest to the public, there may not be  

sufficient space in the public gallery for all those who wish to  

attend.” 52   

                                                           46 Ibid.  47 Ibid.  48 Ibid.  49 Ibid.  50 Ibid.  51 Supra note 16.  52 Ibid.

PART D   

31  

The Ministry had recommended broadcasting the Court of Appeals’  

proceedings as they do not involve victims or witnesses:  

“Cases in the Court of Appeal normally deal with complex  

issues of law or evidence, and victims and witnesses rarely  

appear in order to provide new evidence. Given the complexity  

of legal issues in Court of Appeal cases, we believe that  

allowing advocates’ arguments to be filmed in addition to  

judgments would be more likely to improve public  

understanding than judgments alone. We are therefore  

proposing to allow judgments and legal arguments from cases  

before the Court of Appeal to be broadcast.”53  

Live-streaming of the Court of Appeals’ hearings opened the doors to other  

courts in the UK for broadcasting. The UK Parliament enacted the Crime and  

Courts Act, 2013, which, inter alia, enables recording of court proceedings with  

the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. This was  

enacted as a primary legislation to empower the Lord Chancellor, with the Lord  

Chief Justice, “to set out in secondary legislation the specific circumstances in  

which the prohibition on cameras in courts…will be disapplied.”54   

In 2016, the Ministry of Justice launched a three-month pilot program to  

experiment with broadcasting the proceedings of eight England and Welsh  

Crown Courts.55 This was limited to judges’ sentencing remarks and the footage  

was not made available to the public.56 The question of broadcasting the Crown  

                                                           53 Ibid.  54 Ibid.  55 Supra note 42.  56 Ibid.

PART D   

32  

Court’s hearings is currently pending consideration before the Ministry of  

Justice, as it involves larger issues of safeguarding witnesses and victims.57   

(ii) South Africa  

In South Africa, the presence of cameras in the courtroom is a recent  

development and is at a relatively nascent stage. In 2017, the Supreme Court  

of Appeal (which is the highest court of appeal in South Africa) set a precedent  

permitting broadcasting of proceedings in all courts of South Africa.58 Now, the  

media is permitted to live broadcast the proceedings of all South African courts.  

While permitting the media to live broadcast the court proceedings, Ponna JA  

made an interesting observation that it was time for courts to ‘yield to a new  

reality:’   

“It is thus important to emphasise that giving effect to the  

principle of open justice and its underlying aims now means  

more than merely keeping the courtroom doors open. It means  

that court proceedings must where possible be meaningfully  

accessible to any member of the public who wishes to be  

timeously and accurately apprised of such proceedings.  

Broadcasting of court proceedings enables this to occur.”59  

Witnesses are granted the freedom to object to broadcasting their testimony,  

subject to the court’s final discretion. This discretion, Ponna JA (speaking for  

the bench) emphasised, must be exercised by the courts on a case-by-case  

                                                           57 The Telegraph, Crown Court sentencing being recorded for pilot projects that could bring judges’ comments to  

TV, 27 July 2016. Available at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/27/crown-court-sentencing-being- recorded-for-pilot-project-that-cou/  

58 The NDPP v Media 24 Limited & others and HC Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others (425/2017) [2017]  ZASCA 97.  

59 Ibid at para 46.

PART D   

33  

basis, by conducting an individualised enquiry.60 Where the judge finds that the  

objections of the witness are valid, the court considers alternatives to regular  

photographic or television coverage.61   

(iii) Canada  

The Canadian Supreme Court is considered a pioneer for adapting itself to  

technology and permitting audio-visual broadcasting of its proceedings.62 In  

1993, the Canadian Supreme Court conducted a successful pilot project, live  

televising the hearings of three high profile cases. The broadcasts were  

governed by the following guidelines:    

“(a) The case to be filmed will be selected by the Chief Justice.  

(b) The Chief Justice or presiding Justice may limit or terminate  

media coverage to protect the rights of the parties; the dignity  

of the court; to assure the orderly conduct of the proceedings;  

or for any other reason considered necessary or appropriate.  

(c) No direct public expense is to be incurred for wiring, or  

personnel needed to provide media coverage.”63  

The Canadian Supreme Court permits the Canadian Parliamentary Press  

Gallery to live broadcast all appeals before it.64 The Canadian Parliamentary  

Affairs Channel (CPAC) is also allowed to televise the appeal hearings of the  

Court, but at a later date.65 The broadcasts are subject to guidelines which  

                                                           60 Ibid at para 72.  61 Ibid at para 73.  62 Kyu Ho Youm, Cameras in the Courtroom in the Twenty-First Century: e U.S. Supreme Court Learning From  

Abroad?, 2012 BYU L. Rev. 1989 (2012).  63 Ibid.  64 Supreme Court of Canada, Access to the Court. Available at https://www.scc-csc.ca/media/acc-eng.aspx  65 Daniel Stepniak, ‘Audio Visual Coverage of Courts, A Comparative Analysis,’ Cambridge University Press  (2008).

PART D   

34  

ensure that the Court retains control over the filming process.66 Although the  

CPAC decides which cases to broadcast, the Supreme Court has the discretion  

to prohibit the filming of specific appeals. 67 The CPAC is permitted to share the  

broadcast feed with other television networks, for use as snippets in news  

programs.68  

At present, four cameras are installed in the Supreme Court.69 The appeal  

hearings have been broadcast since 2009 and are archived on the Court’s  

website.70 The cameras are installed by the Court and are operated by the  

Court’s employees. Outside cameras are not permitted except for special  

events.71 The copyright over the proceedings is retained by the Court.72 Before  

any case can be filmed, the Supreme Court requires parties to consent to the  

recording and televising of the proceedings.73 Any party seeking to exclude their  

case from the broadcast must convey the same to the Registrar at least two  

weeks prior to the hearing date. 74   

                                                           66 Ibid.  67 Supra note 62.  68 Ibid.  69 Ibid.  70 Ibid.  71 Ibid.  72 Supra note 65.  73 Ibid.  74 Ibid.

PART D   

35  

(iv) Australia  

Australia follows an open court system, with courts in all Australian jurisdictions  

admitting television cameras into courtrooms. 75  Since 2013, audio-visual  

recordings of the High Court of Australia have been made available to the  

public.76 The entire process of filming and broadcasting is carried out by the  

Court staff.77 Transcripts of the hearings are made available within a day or two  

of most hearings. 78 The High Court has stated that initially the recordings will  

be available after a few business days, however, the Court will endeavour to  

reduce the number of days.79   

Apart from the High Court, most Australian courts do not maintain a consistent  

policy on admitting television cameras into the courtroom.80 Filming is permitted  

on an ad hoc basis and is usually restricted to the recording of file and overlay  

footage or ceremonial sittings.81  

                                                           75 See supra note 65.  76 High Court of Australia, Press Release, 01 October 2013. Available at:   http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/news/MR-audio-visual-recordings-Oct13.pdf.  77High Court of Australia, Photography and Recording Guidelines. Available at:   http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/photography-and-recording  78 Ibid.  79 Ibid.  80 Supra note 65 at page 210-211.  81 Ibid.

PART D   

36  

(v) New Zealand  

 New Zealand allows wide access to the media in courts and has one of the most  

progressive live broadcast policies among common law countries. 82  

Traditionally, members of the media were only permitted to make hand-written  

notes of court proceedings, without the use of any electronic device.83 From  

1996 to 1998, New Zealand conducted a three year pilot project which covered  

more than twenty cases.84 All courts in New Zealand were covered under the  

pilot, contingent on two main rules:   

“1. Material obtained from expanded media coverage which is  

broadcast shall be presented in a way which gives an accurate,  

impartial and balanced coverage of the proceedings and of the  

parties involved.  Any such broadcast is to be without editorial  

comment and to be of at least two minutes duration per news  

item.   

2. There shall be no use of material obtained from expanded  

media coverage otherwise than for normal news programmes  

or articles unless prior approval for that use has been given by  

the trial judge or, where that judge is unavailable, another  

judge of the relevant court.”85  

New Zealand permits media houses to broadcast court proceedings with the  

approval of the court.86 The broadcast is governed by a set of guidelines which  

balance the principle of open justice with the need for a fair trial. They impose  

upon the media the responsibility to provide “an accurate, fair and balanced  

                                                           82  See supra note 65.  83  New Zealand, Report to Chief Justice on In-Court Media Coverage (2015), at para 7. Available at  

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/In-Court-Media-Review/In-Court-Media- Review/ReporttoChiefJusticeonincourtmediacoverageF6_7_15_20150720.pdf  

84 Ibid, at para 15.  85 Ibid, at para 14.  86 New Zealand, In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines (2016). Available at: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/going-

to-court/media/rules-and-resources/INCOURTMEDIACOVERAGEGUIDELINES2016T.pdf

PART D   

37  

report of the hearing” without publishing anything out of context.87 They also  

provide for a ten minute delay in broadcasting audio and video recordings.88  

Under the guidelines, any media outlet wishing to film and broadcast court  

proceedings is required to seek prior written permission from the court for each  

case.89 The discretion of the court to grant permission is guided by the following  

considerations:   

“a. the need for a fair trial;   

b. the desirability of open justice;   

c. the principle that the media have an important role in the  

reporting of trials as the eyes and ears of the public;   

d. court obligations to the victims of offences; and   

e. the interests and reasonable concerns and perceptions of  

the parties, victims and witnesses.”90  

The Supreme Court permits recording of its proceedings in majority of the  

cases, unless specifically objected to by the parties.91 The Supreme Court’s  

media guidelines, published upon its establishment in 2004, indicate that audio-

visual covering is to be considered as the norm, rather than the exception:  

“Subject to paragraph (5), all applications to televise or  

otherwise record proceedings of the Supreme Court will be  

deemed to be approved unless a party indicates, within 3 days  

of being advised by the registrar of the application, that the  

party objects to it.”92  

                                                           87 Ibid.   88 Ibid, at para 2.1.  89 Ibid, at para 5.5.  90 Ibid at para 2.3.  91 Supra note 65, at page 347.  92 New Zealand Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court Media Guidelines (2004). Available at:  

https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/media-centre/media-information/media- guide/appendices/appendix-e/    

PART D   

38  

(vi) United States  

 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. Audio recordings of each week’s oral arguments are released on the  

court’s website93 at the end of the week.  

Each Federal Court of Appeals has the discretion to provide audio or video  

recordings of its proceedings, subject to guidelines framed by the court. Since  

2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has approved video  

broadcasting of all cases before it, except those prohibited by law through  

guidelines.94 The media needs to take prior approval of the court to record the  

proceedings.95 The presiding judge is granted absolute discretion to limit or  

terminate media coverage, or direct the removal of camera coverage personnel  

when necessary, in order to protect the rights of the parties or aid the conduct  

of proceedings.96 The video and audio recordings of the federal judiciary are  

hosted on YouTube and are also available on the court’s official website.97 The  

district and lower courts in each state permit some form of audio or video  

broadcasting and recording of its proceedings, subject to guidelines and rules.98  

                                                           93 The official website of the Supreme Court of the United States. Available at:    

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2017  94  The United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, Guidelines for Broadcasting, Recording, and Still  

Photography in the Courtroom. Available at:   https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/news_media/camera.guidelines. pdf   

95 Ibid.  96 Ibid.   97 The official YouTube handle of US Courts. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/user/uscourts  98 As held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Chandler v Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981).

PART D   

39  

(vii) Brazil   

 In 2002, the President of Brazil sanctioned a law enabling the creation of a  

public television channel dedicated to the judiciary and to the Supreme Court.99  

The court sessions of the Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal) are  

broadcast online100 on either ‘TV Justica’101 or ‘Radio Justica’102 and operated  

by the Supreme Court. Aside from being aired on television and radio, the  

proceedings can also be streamed online as the Court maintains a Twitter  

account 103  and a YouTube channel. 104  The unique feature of the Brazilian  

Supreme Court is that cameras are permitted into the conferences where the  

judges deliberate.105  

(viii) International Courts  

 International courts have also embraced the idea of broadcasting their court  

proceedings. The International Criminal Court (ICC) permits televising of its  

cases, although with a thirty minute delay.106 The ICC has a YouTube channel  

where it broadcasts case proceedings, press conferences, and informative  

videos in different languages. 107  In the European Court on Human Rights  

(ECHR), all hearings are permitted to be made public, unless specifically  

                                                           99 Meet the Justice TV. Available at official website: http://www.tvjustica.jus.br/index/conheca   100 Supra note 62.  101 TV Justica. Available at official website: http://www.tvjustica.jus.br/   102 Radio Justica. Available at official website: www.radiojustica.jus.br/  103 The official Twitter handle of Supreme Court of Brazil. Available at: https://twitter.com/stf_oficial   104 The official YouTube handle of Supreme Court of Brazil. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/user/stf   105 Supra note 62.  106 Official website of International Criminal Court. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/  107Official YouTube Channel of International Criminal Court. Available at:       

https://www.youtube.com/user/IntlCriminalCourt/videos

PART D   

40  

disallowed by the Court.108 The broadcast is available on the Court’s website  

on the same day. Broadcast of morning sessions is put up by the afternoon,  

and the afternoon sessions by evening. The ECHR states that all hearings are  

filmed and broadcast of the court’s website on the day itself, from 14:30 (local  

time) onwards.109  

   20 On examining the practices followed by the jurisdictions discussed  

above, it appears that broadcasting of courtroom proceedings emerged in  

several countries through judicial decisions. Further, most jurisdictions follow  

certain common practices such as (i) a minimal delay in live broadcast; (ii)  

retention of the copyright with the court; (iii) conducting a pilot project before  

introducing broadcasting for all cases; (iv) excluding certain categories of cases  

where the interests of justice warrant that the hearings should not be webcast  

or streamed; and (v) conferment of power on the presiding judge to regulate the  

live transmission. Every jurisdiction has a set of limitations to which the  

broadcast is subject. Broadcast is usually not permitted when it impedes the  

administration of justice.  

   21 Live-streaming of court proceedings is manifestly in public interest. It is  

important to re-emphasise the significance of live-streaming as an extension of  

the principle of open justice and open courts. However, the process of live-

                                                           108 Rule 63, Rules of Court, ECHR, 01 Aug 2018. Available at:   https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf  109 ECHR, Webcast of hearings. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings&c=   

PART D   

41  

streaming should be subjected to carefully structured guidelines. Initially, a pilot  

project may be conducted for about three months, by live-streaming only cases  

of national and constitutional importance in the Chief Justice’s Court.  

Progressively, as and when the infrastructure is ready, this Court can expand  

the ambit of live-streaming to cover all cases (except for the ones which are  

excluded).   

22 The need for live-streaming of proceedings applies with equal and, in  

some respects, greater force to proceedings of cases in the district judiciary and  

the High Courts. The pattern of litigation in our country resembles a pyramid.   

The courts within the district judiciary represent the large base of the pyramid  

where citizens have the greatest interface. It is to the Courts comprised in the  

district judiciary that citizens turn as a point of first access for remedying  

injustice. At the tip of the pyramid is the jurisdiction of this Court. In terms of  

volume, the largest amount of litigation emanates in the district judiciary,  

followed by the High Courts. The engagement of the district judiciary in  

resolving injustices faced by citizens requires that every citizen should have full  

access to and knowledge about the proceedings before those courts. Equally,  

the principle of an open court which has been espoused in this judgment would  

merit that proceedings before the High Courts should also be live-streamed.   

23 Live-streaming of proceedings is crucial to the dissemination of  

knowledge about judicial proceedings and granting full access to justice to the

PART D   

42  

litigant. Access to justice can never be complete without the litigant being able  

to see, hear and understand the course of proceedings first hand.  Apart from  

this, live-streaming is an important facet of a responsive judiciary which accepts  

and acknowledges that it is accountable to the concerns of those who seek  

justice. Live-streaming is a significant instrument of establishing the  

accountability of other stake-holders in the justicing process, including the Bar.  

Moreover, the government as the largest litigant has to shoulder the  

responsibility for the efficiency of the judicial process. Full dissemination of  

knowledge and information about court proceedings through live-streaming  

thus subserves diverse interests of stake holders and of society in the proper  

administration of justice.    

24 For lawyers and judges familiar with the cocoon of a physical court room,  

live-streaming would require attitudinal changes. They include the maintenance  

of order and sequencing of oral arguments. Judges in charge of their courts  

would have to devote attention to case management. But these demands are  

necessary incidents of the challenges of our time.  Slow as we have been to  

adapt to the complexities of our age, it is nonetheless necessary for the judiciary  

to move apace with technology. By embracing technology, we would only  

promote a greater degree of confidence in the judicial process. Hence, the Chief  

Justices of the High Courts should be commended to consider the adoption of  

live-streaming both in the High Courts and in the district judiciaries in phases,  

commensurate with available resources and technical support. The High Courts

PART D   

43  

would have to determine the modalities for doing so by framing appropriate  

rules.       

25 Comprehensive guidelines for live-streaming of Court proceedings have  

been submitted by Mr K K Venugopal, learned Attorney General of India, Ms  

Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel, Mr Virag Gupta, learned Counsel and  

Mr Mathews J Nedumpara, learned Counsel. These have been duly considered  

in framing the model guidelines below. The model guidelines are based on the  

following broad principles:  

   a. Article 145 (1) of the Constitution provides:   

“Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the  

Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the  

President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and  

procedure of the Court...”  

Determining the modalities for live-streaming of the proceedings of this Court  

can appropriately be dealt with under the Rules which should be framed in  

pursuance of Article 145(1). Regulating, generally, the practice and  

procedure of the Court would extend to formulating Rules for live-streaming.  

b.   Not all cases may be live-streamed. Certain sensitive cases like matrimonial  

or sexual assault cases should be excluded from the process of live-

streaming;  

PART D   

44  

c.    Live-streaming will be carried out with a minimal delay to allow time for  

screening sensitive information or any exchange which should not be  

streamed;  

 d.    The final authority to regulate suspension or prohibition of live-streaming in  

a particular case where the administration of justice so requires, must be  

with the presiding judge of each court;  

 e.     Live-streaming will be carried out only by persons or any agency authorized  

under the directions of the Chief Justice of India, or as contemplated in the  

Rules. The streaming and broadcasting will be hosted by this Court on its  

website with the assistance of the National Informatics Centre and the  

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology;  

 f.    The copyright over all the material recorded and broadcast in this Court shall  

vest with this Court only; and  

 g.    The recordings and broadcast may not be used by anyone for commercial  

purposes.   

 h. Archives shall be maintained of all live-streaming, to be hosted on the  

web-site of the Court.    

   26 The model guidelines are of a suggested nature and will not detract from  

the authority of the Court to frame Rules under Article 145(1) in order to   

determine all the modalities, including (i) the phases  in   which   live-streaming

PART E   

45  

shall be introduced; (ii) the types of cases for which live-streaming of cases will  

be provided; (iii) authorising the use of appropriate technology; (iv) the agencies  

through which live-streaming will be implemented; (v) other facets for  

implementation;  and (vi) laying down norms for the use of the feed.     

E Model guidelines for broadcasting of the proceedings and other  

judicial events of the Supreme Court of India   

A.      Kind of matters to be live-streamed  

1. Proceedings involving the hearing of cases before the Supreme Court  

shall be live-streamed in the manner provided below:   

a) Cases falling under the following categories shall be excluded as a  

class from live-streaming:  

(i) Matrimonial matters, including transfer petitions;  

(ii) Cases involving sensitive issues as in the nature of sexual  

assault; and   

(iii) Matters where children and juveniles are involved, like  

POCSO cases.  

 b) Apart from the general prohibition on streaming cases falling in the  

above categories, the presiding judge of each courtroom shall have  

the discretion to disallow live-streaming for specific cases where, in  

his/her opinion, publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. This

PART E   

46  

may be intimated by the presiding judge in advance or live-streaming  

may be suspended as and when a matter is being heard; and   

 c) Where objections are filed by a litigant against live-streaming of a  

case on grounds of privacy, confidentiality, or the administration of  

justice, the final authority on live-streaming the case shall lie with the  

presiding judge.   

2. In addition to live-streaming of courtroom proceedings, the following  

events may also be live-streamed in future subject to the provisions of the  

Rules:   

(a) Oath ceremonies of the Judges of the Supreme Court and speeches  

delivered by retiring judges and other judges in the farewell  

ceremony of the respective Supreme Court Judges; and  

 (b) Addresses delivered in judicial conferences or Full Court References  

or any event organized by the Supreme Court or by advocate  

associations affiliated to the Supreme Court or any other events.  

B.     Manner of live-streaming  

1. Live-streamed and archived videos of the broadcast shall be made  

available on the official website of the Supreme Court. The recorded

PART E   

47  

broadcast of each day shall be made available as archives on the official  

website of the Supreme Court by the end of the day;  

 2. Live-streaming shall commence as soon as the judges arrive in the  

courtroom and shall continue till the Bench rises;   

 3. The presiding judge of the courtroom shall be provided with an  

appropriate device for directing the technical team to stop live-streaming,  

if the Bench deems it necessary in the interest of administration of justice;    

 4. Live-streaming of the proceedings should be carried out with a delay of  

two minutes;    

 5. Proceedings shall only be live-streamed during working hours of the  

court;  

 6. Courtroom proceedings will continue to be live-streamed unless the  

presiding judge orders the recording to be paused or suspended;  

7. To give full effect to the process of live-streaming, advocates addressing  

the Bench, and judges addressing the Bar, must use microphones, while  

addressing the Court;   

8. Recording of courtroom proceedings shall be done by the Registry with  

the technical support of National Informatics Centre or any other public/

PART E   

48  

private agency authorised by the Supreme Court or the Ministry of  

Information and Technology; and  

 9. The portions of proceedings which are not broadcast online, on the  

direction of the presiding judge of the Bench shall not be made part of the  

official records and shall be placed separately as ‘confidential records’.  

C.      Technical specifications for live-streaming  

1. Live-streaming shall be conducted by the Supreme Court with its own  

camera-persons or by an authorized agency. No person who is not  

authorized by the Supreme Court will be permitted to record any  

proceeding;  

 2. Cameras should be focused only on the judges and advocates pleading  

before the Bench in the matter being live-streamed;  

 3. Cameras shall not film the media and visitor’s galleries;    

4. Cameras may zoom in on the Bench when any judge is dictating an order  

or judgment or making any observation or enquiry to the advocate; and   

5. The following communications shall not be filmed:  

 a) Discussions among the judges on the Bench;   

PART E   

49  

b) Any judge giving instructions to the administrative staff of the  

courtroom;   

c) Any staff member communicating any message to the judge or  

circulating any document to the judge;  

d) Notes taken down by the judge during the court proceedings; and  

e) Notes made by an advocate either on paper or in electronic form for  

assistance while making submissions to the court.  

D.        Archiving  

1. The audio-visual recording of each day’s proceedings shall be  

preserved in the Audio-Visual Unit of the Supreme Court Registry;  

 2. Archives of all broadcasts of courtroom proceedings which have been  

live-streamed should be made available on the website of the Supreme  

Court; and   

 3. Hard copies of the video footage of past proceedings may be made  

available according to terms and conditions to be notified by the  

Supreme Court Registry. The video footage shall be made available for  

the sole purpose of fair and accurate reporting of the judicial proceedings  

of the Supreme Court.  

PART E   

50  

E.        Broadcast Room  

 1. The Registry will  make one or more rooms or a hall available within the  

premises of the Supreme Court for the purpose of broadcasting the  

proceedings. Multiple screens along with the other necessary  

infrastructural facilities shall be installed, for enabling litigants,  

journalists, interns, visitors and lawyers to view the courtroom  

proceedings in the broadcast room(s). Special arrangements will be  

made for the differently abled.  

F. Miscellaneous  

1. The Supreme Court shall hold exclusive copyright over videos streamed  

online and archived with the Registry; and  

 2. Re-use, capture, re-editing or redistribution, or creating derivative works  

or compiling of the broadcast or video footage, in any form, shall not be  

permitted except as may be notified in the terms and conditions of use  

and without the written permission of the Registry.  

PART E   

51  

I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts and assistance rendered  

by Mr K K Venugopal, the learned Attorney General for India, Ms Indira Jaising,  

learned Senior Counsel, Mr Mathews Nedumpara, learned Counsel and by the  

law student, Mr Swapnil Tripathi, who also moved a petition under Article 32.  

 …….…..........................................J  

                                         [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]  

New Delhi;   September 26, 2018.