Author: Shreya Rajeev Warrier, G.J. Advani Law College, Mumbai
To the Point
The Supreme Court’s initiative to live-stream courtroom proceedings is a remarkable move toward judicial transparency. However, when the live-streaming extends to matters of criminal trials, there is a direct collision with the potential hazards of media trials, infringing upon the rights of the accused in accordance with their constitutional rights, while forming a selective and distorted process for the delivery of justice. This article considers the legal challenge of balancing transparency with the need to uphold the impartiality of proceedings that are sub judice.
Use of Legal Jargon – This article employs terms, such as:
Media Trial:
A media trial is where there is ongoing reporting of updates from media outlets, especially news channels and social media, on a legal case whereby the media attempts to warp public perception of the case such that by the time any judgment is rendered by a court of law, the public already judges guilt or innocence based in their perception.
Sub judice:
It is the Latin term for “under judgment”. It refers to any case that is being heard in court, and because of which it prohibits media from discussing about the case in a manner that misleads or influences the outcome of ongoing proceedings.
Contempt of Court:
Contempt of court is any act that shows lack of respect to the authority, dignity, or judicial proceedings.
Open Court Principle:
The open court principle means that judicial decisions should be accessible to the public and press in order to ensure transparency and accountability in the justice system.
Under-trial Prisoner:
An under-trial prisoner is a person who has been arrested and charged with a crime but whose trial has not yet concluded. Such a person retains the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court.
Judicial Propriety:
Judicial propriety relates to the anticipated conduct, impartiality, and decorum expected of judges. It places a duty on judicial officers so that they are not swayed by external opinions (such as media or public opinion) and preserve the dignity of the court.
The Proof
India’s media landscape has evolved into a 24×7 cycle of breaking news and has not only become accustomed to breaking news but frequently treats criminal investigations as breaking news. The input of sensationalist coverage, particularly during the pendency of trials, has become a regular feature across television, print, and digital media platforms This phenomenon is legally recognized as “Media Trials”.
The Aryan Khan drug case demonstrate how media speculation, commentary, and selective leaks can shape public sentiment, compromise investigation integrity, and obstruct due process. The ability of courtroom to be live-streamed has only exacerbated the issue of perception and conviction. Transparency must be maintained in a democratic judiciary, however not at the cost of justice.
Abstract
The initiative for transparency through the live streaming of court proceedings represents a significant move toward democratizing the access to justice system. The initiative to live-stream court proceedings, beginning with Swapnil Tripathi v. Union of India (2018) and realized through the Supreme Court’s 2022 telecast project, aims to enhance judicial transparency. However, extending this practice to criminal trials raises critical concerns surrounding media trials, public prejudice, and violations of procedural fairness and privacy. This article explores the constitutional tensions between transparency and the right to a fair trial, evaluates statutory protections under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and surveys comparative international jurisprudence and regulatory frameworks governing courtroom broadcasting in jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Brazil. It ultimately advocates for the introduction of a comprehensive legislative and regulatory regime in India.
Introduction
Real-Time Justice or Spectacle?
The legal system thrives on objectivity, insulation from bias, and procedural fairness. As it moves into a more digital environment, including live streaming courtroom proceedings, more specifically in regard to criminal trials, presents both an opportunity and a dilemma. On one hand, it strengthens judicial transparency. On the other, informal adjudication by public perception, often devoid of legal nuance.
This trend raises an urgent constitutional question: Can media-fueled narratives coexist with the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial?
Live-Streaming in the Judiciary: Evolution and Present Status
The Swapnil Tripathi case laid the foundation for embracing live broadcasts in matters of public interest, rooted in the open court principle. In 2022, the Supreme Court launched a live streaming portal for selective telecasting of constitutional bench hearings. Several High Courts have also implemented live streaming such as Gujarat, Karnataka, and Orissa.
As the demand grows to extend this to criminal trials, especially in celebrity or politically charged cases, risks to fair trial rights, witness protection, and judicial decorum intensify.
Media Trials: A Double-Edged Sword
The term “media trial” refers to media coverage that influences ongoing legal proceedings. The media often functions as the public prosecutor, and pronounces guilt prior to the court.
Notable examples include:
Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case – The premature narratives projected by news channels not only misled the public but also created undue pressure on the investigating agencies and the judiciary, compromising the integrity of the trial process.
Sushant Singh Rajput case – The media swiftly turned the investigation into a spectacle, with relentless coverage and speculative reporting.
Aryan Khan drug case – Extensive media coverage sensationalized the arrest, often portraying the accused as guilty despite the absence of conclusive evidence at that stage. The narrative in public discourse was largely driven by leaked investigation details and moral judgment before the court could determine the facts.
Although Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression the right is not absolute. A case for almost unfettered media scrutiny of sub judice matters can also infringe Article 21 of the Constitution that protects the right to life and personal liberty. An integral component of Article 21 is the right to dignity and reputation and the right to a fair and impartial trial in accordance with due process.
Sub Judice and Contempt: Where Law Draws the Line
The principle of sub judice limits public commentaries on matters currently under judicial consideration to avoid influencing the court’s decision-making process. This principle is also reflected in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt as any act that tends to cause prejudice to the fair administration of justice in proceedings.
In R.K. Anand v. Registrar, the Court was critical of media practices that undermined procedural fairness. If live telecasts are allowed, they could violate judicial process by giving the audience immediate experience of courtroom events, without any context.
Challenges in Streaming Criminal Cases
Presumption of Innocence -The bedrock of criminal law is innocent until proven guilty. Live streaming, especially of police depositions or witness testimonies, may tarnish public perception.
Witness Protection – Many witnesses may hesitate to testify in high-profile cases if their statements are instantly broadcast, fearing retribution or public shaming.
Victim Anonymity – In cases related to sexual offences, minors, or those falling under the POCSO Act, live-streaming poses the risk of unintentionally revealing the victim’s identity, thereby breaching Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and infringing upon the right to privacy affirmed in the Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment.
Judicial Decorum – Real-time scrutiny may influence judicial officers, especially in lower courts, to cater to public sentiment rather than legal principle.
International Jurisprudence: Learning from Comparative Models
United States: Most federal criminal trials prohibit video recording or streaming, fearing impact on witness behaviour and juror neutrality.
United Kingdom: Only appellate decisions are televised; criminal trials remain private to avoid bias.
Brazil and Canada: Permit live streaming with safeguards like editing, delay buffers, and limited access.
India currently lacks a codified regulatory framework, relying instead on SC guidelines from 2022, which suggest:
Avoiding streaming of sensitive matters.
Employing time-delayed telecasts.
Ensuring editorial discretion.
But these are not binding or uniformly enforced across states or levels of the judiciary.
The Regulatory Vacuum and Need for Legislative Intervention
In the absence of uniform standards and enforceable safeguards, there is a growing concern over the unchecked streaming of sensitive trials. To bridge this regulatory gap, there is a pressing need to introduce a dedicated legislation. Such a statute could:
Clearly delineate the categories of proceedings eligible for live-streaming, explicitly excluding trials involving sexual offences, juveniles, national security, or witness-sensitive matters.
Establish an independent regulatory authority or oversight committee empowered to screen and approve content prior to broadcast, ensuring that the proceedings are not taken out of context or sensationalized.
Prescribe penalties for unauthorized recording, distribution, or manipulation of live-streamed footage, thereby deterring misuse and upholding the dignity of judicial processes.
Include specific protections for under-trial prisoners, children, and survivors of sexual violence, in accordance with principles of privacy, dignity, and procedural fairness.
Conclusion
The live-streaming of judicial proceedings has the capacity to transform the judicial system from the traditional representations of justice to a new reality of access, accountability, and transparency. However, broadcasting trials indiscriminately risks breaching the fundamental elements of justice: neutrality, fairness and due process.
As courts pivot into a digital arena, the guiding principle must be clear—justice must be seen to be done, but not made into a spectacle.
Live courtroom streaming, without appropriate guidelines, may potentially deteriorate into a digital amphitheatre of present day witch hunts. So, India needs to promptly balance its constitution to ensure transparency, without compromising justice.
FAQS
Q1. Is live-streaming of criminal trials allowed in India?
Currently, live streaming is permitted only in constitutional and civil matters. There is no express judicial mandate for live-streaming criminal trials, and sensitive cases are generally excluded as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Q2. What are the legal risks of media trials?
Media trials can lead to prejudgment, violate the presumption of innocence, influence witnesses, and result in contempt of court or breach of privacy laws.
Q3. Which laws protect the accused in high-profile cases from media overreach?
Article 21 of the Constitution (right to fair trial)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Sub judice principle
Indian Penal Code (defamation, identity protection)
Q4. How do other countries regulate courtroom streaming?
Most democracies permit only selective live-streaming. For example, the UK allows appellate court streaming, while the US bars it in federal criminal cases. Countries like Canada apply editorial filters and delays.
Q5. What reforms are necessary in India to regulate live-streaming?
A central legislation, editorial oversight, delayed streaming, protection for vulnerable parties, and restrictions on criminal matter telecasts are urgently needed to balance transparency with due process.
Case Law Citations
Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639
Reference
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43629806/
R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106
Reference: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58440/
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Reference
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/
Aarushi-Hemraj Double Murder Case (2008)
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/16210461/?formInput=aarushi%20talwar
Statutory References for Further Reading
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1514?sam_handle=123456789/1362
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/20062
(Refer to Section 72 on Disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences)
References used for the international jurisprudence
https://www.fja.gc.ca/reports-recueil/index-eng.html
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/637/contents/made
