Author – Nikita Patidar, Student at Institute Of Law, Nirma University
TO THE POINT
This piece discusses the constitutional and legal development of live streaming court hearings in India, starting from the Supreme Court judgment in Swapnil Tripathi (2018). The piece examines how open justice under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 facilitates public access while also identifying issues related to privacy, misuse of data, and media sensationalism. Through a comparison with international practice and an assessment of implementation difficulties, the piece submits that a coherent legal regime balancing transparency with dignity and fairness is preferable.
ABSTRACT
This paper critically evaluates the constitutional and legal framework on live streaming of court proceedings in India. Rooted in the doctrines of open justice and the right to access justice under Article 21, it looks at the Supreme Court’s position in Swapnil Tripathi v Union of India and post-judgment evolution in High Courts. It also discusses countervailing concerns of privacy, abuse, and gaps in implementation. Comparing with international practices, the article suggests a standardized statutory framework so that transparency does not come at the expense of fairness or human dignity.
USE OF LEGAL
The Indian law for live streaming of court hearings finds its primary basis in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swapnil Tripathi v Union of India, where it was ruled that live streaming is a constituent of the fundamental right to access justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.The Court also connected this right with Article 19(1)(a), recognizing the right of the public to receive legal information as part of freedom of speech and expression.In order to implement this judgment, the Supreme Court issued Model Guidelines in 2018 which authorize courts to selectively live stream hearings keeping in view case sensitivity and public interest.
But this increase in transparency needs to be balanced against the right of privacy, a constitutional right established in Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, where privacy cannot be interfered with without a valid legal ground. While the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 controls personal data, it remains silent regarding judicial data or streamed court proceedings at present, leading to a legal vacuum with regard to safeguarding litigants’ identities during live proceedings.
Thus, while Indian courts have steadily progressed towards digitizing access to justice, the lack of specific legislation on courtroom broadcasts requires a balanced approach that upholds both open justice and personal dignity.
INTRODUCTION
The principle of open justice is an integral part of the Indian judiciary. Based on the premise that not only should justice be done but also perceived to be done, transparency in judicial proceedings is crucial to building public confidence in the judicial system. With the introduction of the digital technologies, the judiciary has increasingly embraced live streaming of court hearings, beginning with the historic judgment of the Supreme Court in Swapnil Tripathi v Union of India. While this move is a landmark in promoting transparency and public access, it also presents very serious issues with privacy, data protection, and possibilities of media sensationalism. This article examines the constitutional basis, judicial development, international practices, and practical issues pertaining to live streaming of court proceedings in India.
JUDICIAL APPROVAL AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Supreme Court of India in Swapnil Tripathi v Union of India, held that live streaming of court hearings falls within the right to access justice under Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a). The Court noted that live streaming ensures transparency, accountability, and public engagement in the justice delivery system. In the wake of this judgment, the Supreme Court in 2022 commenced live streaming constitutional bench hearings, and a few High Courts—Gujarat, Karnataka, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh—also started streaming chosen hearings on YouTube or court websites.
But the choice of live streaming is optional, subject to the nature of the case. Sensitive cases concerning privacy, national security, or vulnerable witnesses are typically exempted. The Supreme Court’s model guidelines for live streaming (2018) are a point of reference for High Courts but have not been adopted uniformly.
BALANCING OPEN JUSTICE WITH RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Live streaming enhances the democratic worth of open justice but opens the possibility of compromising the privacy and dignity of the parties, particularly in sexually violent cases, family conflicts, or matters of mental well-being. Indian law does not have an all-encompassing data protection law to regulate the utilization, storage, and release of video material from courtrooms. While the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 has come into force, its applicability to judicial processes is unclear.
Additionally, public airing of arguments and witness depositions may affect the perception of justice, promote performative lawyering, or result in ‘trial by media’. Therefore, judicial judgment in selecting cases suitable for live streaming is still an important protection. The right to privacy, reiterated in Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, needs to be weighed against the public interest in open governance.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE AND GLOBAL PRACTICES
Nations such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have incorporated live streaming under regulated circumstances. The UK Supreme Court telecasts all its proceedings on its official website, encouraging legal literacy and accessibility. In Canada, the Supreme Court webcasts its hearings with time delay and editorial control to avoid abuse of sensitive material. Australia’s High Court also offers audio-visual access to some proceedings under a regulatory regime. The United States has a more restrictive model, with the majority of federal courts shying away from live video access altogether on decorum and witness intimidation fears.
These jurisdictions provide important lessons for India: the importance of having clear statutory guidelines, mechanisms of delay to sift out sensitive content, and technological safeguards which avoid misuse of data. Transparency may not happen at the expense of judicial integrity or emotional well-being of litigants.
CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTATION: INFRASTRUCTURE, ACCESS & MISUSE
Live streaming needs strong digital infrastructure, which is not currently available in most district and subordinate courts of India. Bandwidth constraints, lack of technical personnel, and absence of standardized recording systems may also hamper its effective application. In addition, providing equal access to the streaming platforms to the disabled or poorly digitally literate individuals is a cause of concern, posing questions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
There is also the danger of selective editing or abuse of video content by social media, which warps judicial narratives and fuels disinformation. Unlike controlled press reporting, free-flowing digital circulation can easily confuse transparency with voyeurism. The absence of content moderation procedures or takedown policies compounds these dangers.
CONCLUSION
Live streaming of court hearings in India is a positive move towards an open and participatory justice system. Nevertheless, it is necessary that this change comes with caution, not compromising the principles of fairness, privacy, and judicial autonomy. A legislative framework that encapsulates the extent, protection, and limitations of live streaming is a must without delay. On that basis alone can India achieve a substantial balance between transparency and privacy in its justice system.
FAQs
- Is live streaming of court proceedings allowed in India?
Yes, the Supreme Court permitted it in Swapnil Tripathi (2018), and several High Courts now stream proceedings.
- Is there any law regulating what can or cannot be streamed?
No dedicated legislation exists; courts follow the 2018 model guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.
- Can all types of cases be live-streamed?
No. Courts exclude sensitive cases involving sexual offences, minors, or national security concerns.
- Does live streaming affect the right to privacy?
Yes. Publicly broadcasting proceedings may infringe on litigants’ privacy, as seen in Puttaswamy v Union of India.
