The Supreme Court\u2019s position on live-streaming proceedings in cases of national importance has been a prime example of fostering change for larger public interest and access to justice. \u201cSunlight is the best disinfectant,\u201d the top court had said in 2018 while siding with the transparency that live-streaming would bring.
Former Congress Union Minister and senior advocate Kapil Sibal recently appealed to the Supreme Court to cease live-streaming of proceedings of the Chief Justice of India\u2019s court. The senior lawyer cited concerns about his reputation during the ongoing case in the rape-murder of a junior doctor at the RG Kar Medical Hospital before the top court. \u201cWhat happens if you livestream such matters which have emotive implications\u2026.? If something is said by your lordships\u2026? We have a reputation!\u201d, Sibal submitted.
\u2018I was not laughing\u2019
On August 20, the CJI taking suo motu cognisance of the grave offence that created shockwaves throughout India on the intervening night of August 9 was debatable, especially since the case had already been transferred to the CBI by Calcutta High Court in light of mishandling by West Bengal\u2019s machinery. However, the larger systemic issues concerning the workplace safety of women, especially in the healthcare sector, were magnified and taken into account by the court and dealt with by formulating a national task force.
During the hearing, objections were raised by Sibal, representing the West Bengal government about the \u201creputational hazards\u201d of live streaming over the institution as well. \u201cWe have 50 years of reputation, it is at stake\u2026 why to say that that I was laughing\u2026I was not laughing..this is not fair,\u201d said Sibal.
The CJI, while taking note of his concerns about the safety of lawyers who represent clients across the spectrum, emphasised that openness in the judiciary is crucial. The CJI\u2019s monumental contribution to access to justice through live streaming of cases that are nationally important cannot be ignored.
The stance of Sibal, who is the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), is controversial, especially since when he took charge as the president of the lawyers\u2019 body via election, he had vowed to keep politics out of the courtroom. His current position opposing live streaming to safeguard his reputation, built over decades, hints at self-preservation.
The Swapnil Tripathi judgment
The Supreme Court\u2019s journey toward live streaming began in September 2018 with the landmark Swapnil Tripathi judgment. The court ruled that cases of national and constitutional significance be live-streamed to promote transparency, public legal literacy, and engagement with the judicial process. Advocates of live streaming argued that it brings the public closer to the workings of the judiciary, reducing dependence on second-hand interpretations from court reporters and lawyers.
Lest we forget, in 2018, the Supreme Court had said, \u201cSunlight is the best disinfectant\u201d, while allowing live-streaming of proceedings in the Supreme Court, for larger public interest and to promote transparency. Senior advocate Indira Jaising had petitioned the court to start live streaming and the Attorney General of India at the time had agreed with the court\u2019s position.
When access to justice is politicised
Sibal\u2019s earlier public statements, in which he expressed frustration with the judiciary, further fuel the current debate – is the issue of access to justice being politicised? The senior lawyer\u2019s stand on the effect of \u201cinstitutional reputation\u201d due to live streaming may be interpreted as shifting goalposts while risking and undermining public trust in the legal system, especially when his own reputation is in question. As the President-elect of the Highest Court\u2019s lawyer\u2019s body, this may eventually be harmful to the independence of the bar, with its long-standing advocacy in the space of transparency and judicial integrity.
Sibal\u2019s opposition to live streaming and for submission of sealed cover documents before the top court in the instant controversial case seems especially contradictory when viewed from his earlier positions. As recently as 2019, during the P. Chidambaram case, Sibal had vocally opposed the submission of evidence in sealed covers, arguing that such practices undermined the right to a fair trial. He asserted that transparency was a cornerstone of natural justice, stating, \u201cThe court has said that the opposing side has the right to know what is alleged against them in the documents in a sealed cover.\u201d
India Jaising\u2019s petition
Notably, it was senior advocate Indira Jaising who first petitioned the Supreme Court for live streaming of proceedings, citing the public\u2019s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Her petition argued that live-streaming would reduce misinformation, foster trust in the judiciary, and ensure that the public – especially those unable to attend court in person – could stay informed about cases that affect them.
Yet, in the face of Sibal\u2019s attempt to limit public access to the judiciary through his opposition to live streaming, no opposition was put forth, even though an appeal was made to the SCBA President on social media against the CJI and Prime Minister meeting for a religious event. Given her earlier advocacy for live streaming, her quiet response to Sibal\u2019s position has drawn attention.
It could be said that political and personal interests may be clouding the once-unanimous push for openness. Everything is politics, but is politics everything? Is it even in the sunlight?
Sanya Talwar,
Ananya Singh
(NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the authors<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court\u2019s position on live-streaming proceedings in cases of national importance has been a prime example of fostering change for larger public interest and access to justice. \u201cSunlight is the best disinfectant,\u201d the top court had said in 2018 while siding with the transparency that live-streaming would bring.Former Congress Union Minister and senior advocate […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-446719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446719","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=446719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=446719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=446719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=446719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}