The Supreme Court made the decision of hearing a petition by senior lawyer Indira Jaising and few others. The Centre supported the decision by even allowing for a separate television channel like Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to show the court proceedings live.
Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are popular TV channels available to the Indian public to watch live parliament sessions.
Chief Justice Deepak Misra said, “The concept of access to justice can be stretched through live streaming. Litigants are entitled to know how their cases are dealt with and will ensure transparency. Litigants will also know how his or her lawyer is presenting the case.”
The additional reason given by the court was that these court sessions ‘will help students to learn.’
- Supreme Court expedites terror defamation case against Hindi Dailies, says the case involves a wider question of law
- Full Text: Letter to CJI by Senior Supreme Court Judges
- Shame: Leech of Lawyers Defending Child Rapists
- Should the World Learn or Worried about Europe’s Data Privacy Laws?
The Chief Justice court will be trialed first as an experiment followed by the other courts.
Senior advocate, Indira Jaising’s point was of true value. She noted that the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha proceedings not only taught people but brought in more transparency in the parliamentary processes.
Jaising further explained the “right to seek, receive information including live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings” is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”
She added that “…our constitutional fabric is such that we accept the cardinal principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done and thus it becomes essential that persons that may be affected by the Supreme Court’s decisions be able to access the same vide live streaming and video recording. Citizens including the Petitioner herein has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to receive information by way of live streaming of proceedings in the Supreme Court of India.”
“There is no rational reason as to why the same should not be done for cases of constitutional and national importance that impact the public at large,” Ms. Jaising concluded in the petition.