Courts must not stop live streaming

Karnataka High Court Justice V Shrishananda recently found himself at the centre of a controversy and the Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of some undesirable observations made by him in the open court. In one instance, the judge had referred to a Muslim-dominated area in Bengaluru as Pakistan, while in another, he made inappropriate comments to a woman lawyer. With these remarks leading to an outrage on social media and the Supreme Court not taking a kind view of the utterances, the judge expressed “sincere regret” for his remarks, which he said were unintentional and not meant to hurt any individual or section of society. The judge also noted that the observations made during judicial proceedings were reported on social media out of context. Unfortunately, in light of this controversy, the Advocates Association of Bengaluru (AAB) has demanded an end to the live streaming of court proceedings, sparking a debate on the need for judicial transparency and public oversight.

In a judicial order in August, a bench of the Supreme Court had cautioned judges against making “random, gratuitous and unwarranted remarks” in the course of hearings, and to be mindful that proceedings were being live-streamed. The apex court had warned judges that such comments tended to cause “incalculable harm to the sanctity of the judicial process”. Recently, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud remarked, “Social media thinks that every time we say something, that's the judgement.” This only highlights the need for judges to remain mindful of their words and actions in the courtroom. The AAB’s demand is unwarranted, though, as live streaming is intended not only to provide access to courtroom proceedings to all citizens, and thus transparency in the justice system, but also to ensure that judges and advocates understand that they can be held accountable. Lawyers, who must engage in arguments in court, must take this episode as a lesson, rather than using it to demand that the courts go back to an opaque era.  

Judges are required to be circumspect as airing prejudiced observations may lead to a perception that he or she is biased against a particular community or gender. Such comments can compromise a judge’s moral authority and erode public confidence in the justice system. It can also undermine the public’s trust in the judge’s ability to deliver fair verdicts. Judges should not only be impartial but should also appear to be so. Instead of stopping live streaming, there is a need to sensitise judges at all levels to ensure that their pronouncements are fair, inclusive and uphold the principles of equality before the law for all.