Supreme Court Seeks Attorney General’s Assistance In Plea On Live Streaming Of Cases.

The Supreme Court has sought the centre’s reply on a plea seeking live streaming of cases of constitutional and national importance that could have an impact on the public.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also sought the assistance of Attorney General K.K. Venugopal on the matter.
 
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, the petitioner in the case, clarified to the court that the petition only sought live streaming of cases of “constitutional and national importance that would impact the public” from the Supreme Court and not other cases.She said that the court could consider laying down guidelines governing the same.
The public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Indira Jaising held that live streaming and videography of the proceedings of the apex court in matters of great public importance will be in keeping with the principle of “open access to justice” and will ensure “justice is not only done but is seen to be done”.
Such an exercise would inspire confidence in the functioning of the judiciary as an institution and help in maintaining the respect that it deserves as a co-equal organ of the state, the petition said.
It further said that it is necessary that those who are impacted by the judgments of the court have a right to be aware of the manner in which decisions are taken.
The petition referred to courts dealing with issues of environment, triple talaq, air pollution, ban on liquor to avoid deaths on national highways, ban on firecrackers to prevent air and noise pollution and extra judicial killings, all of which affect the public who do not get to see how decisions are made by the court.
Enabling citizens to understand the reasoning in cases affecting their rights forms part of their right to dignity and is an intrinsic value of their right to be heard under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution, the petition added.
The petition also quotes how other jurisdictions including, those of Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, South Africa, the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court, permit varying degrees of recording court proceedings.