The landmark ruling in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) established that live streaming of court proceedings for cases of national and constitutional importance is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Delivered by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, this judgment emphasized the need for transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court imposed several restrictions to ensure that live streaming does not violate privacy or compromise sensitive matters:
Post the 2018 judgment, various High Courts, including those in Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha, initiated live streaming of proceedings on platforms like YouTube. The Supreme Court began live streaming its Constitution Bench hearings from September 2022, increasing public access to judicial processes.
Despite its benefits, live streaming raises significant legal and ethical issues, such as:
According to Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or public communication of copyrighted content constitutes infringement. Section 63 provides for imprisonment for such violations. Courts hold the copyright over their proceedings, making unauthorized monetization of court content illegal.
The IT Act, 2000 plays a crucial role in regulating the misuse of live-streamed content. Key provisions include:
Unauthorized reposting of court clips, often taken out of context, misleads the public and creates false narratives.
According to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt includes any act that scandalizes the court or obstructs judicial proceedings. Misrepresentation of judicial proceedings through sensationalized content can attract contempt proceedings.
While the Supreme Court's ruling on live streaming promotes public access to justice, it also recognizes privacy concerns. Unauthorized use of court videos in family disputes or criminal trials can violate the privacy and dignity of the individuals involved.
Live streaming has also affected how lawyers and judges are portrayed. Social media often selectively edits proceedings, leading to public criticism and damaging professional credibility. Justice B.R. Gavai highlighted these concerns during a speech on "Leveraging Technology Within the Judiciary" in Nairobi.
In Dr. Vijay Bajaj vs. Union of India & Others (2024), the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed unauthorized editing and sharing of live-streamed court proceedings, issuing interim orders to restrict such actions. Similarly, in K Kiran Kumar vs. Swaroopa (2024), the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that vilification of the judiciary amounts to contempt, reinforcing the need for safeguards.
Expanding live streaming must come with adequate safeguards to ensure accountability and prevent misuse. Collaboration between judicial and legislative bodies is essential for introducing regulations that protect court content. Ultimately, courts should retain control over the dissemination of recorded proceedings to avoid distortion and misinformation. "Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done—without turning it into a spectacle for profit."
Q1. What is the importance of the Swapnil Tripathi judgment?
Answer: The judgment recognized live streaming of court proceedings as a fundamental right under Article 21, emphasizing transparency and public confidence in the judiciary.
Q2. What restrictions were placed on live streaming by the Supreme Court?
Answer: The Court excluded cases involving sexual offenses, witness protection, and any situation that might prejudice a fair trial from being live-streamed.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
