It also ensures that judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected in courts of law.
This comment came in the wake of the recent controversy sparked by certain ‘gratuitous’ comments made by Justice V Srishananda of Karnataka High Court against a woman advocate. Advocates Association of Bengaluru also had demanded a temporary stop on livestreaming of high court proceedings.
While Supreme Court’s introspective push is welcome, it’s even better news that the top court has refused to end the livestreaming of proceedings. Open societies should not opt for closed circuit as default.
‘Anti-livestreamers’ argue that it can lead to misinterpretations, especially on social media. But, echoing US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, CJI stated, ‘The answer to sunlight is more sunlight.
The answer is not to close our doors and shut out everything.’ Livestreaming should be expanded across the judicial system, particularly in lower courts, where the bulk of judicial activity occurs and most individuals seeking justice are poor and lack the resources to attend proceedings. It would not only provide ‘more sunlight’ but also enhance limited legal aid capacity, allowing lawyers to offer advice without needing to travel. It would shine a spotlight on behaviour that CJI and his colleagues assert has no place in the courtroom.For too long, access to courts has been limited and opaque. Livestreaming is changing that and can make justice more accessible.
