# SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [2018] 11 S.C.R. 57
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-09-26
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, A. M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/swapnil-tripathi-v-supreme-court-of-india-32366
- **Pages:** 84

## Headnote

Constitution of India:
Arts. 19(1)(a), 21 and 145(4) - Live streaming of proceedings
of cases in Supreme Court having public importance - Sought by
filing Writ Petition u/Art.32 - Held: Open trials and its access to the
public is an accepted proposition - Indian legal system subscribes
to the concept of open courts - Art.145(4) stipulates that
pronouncements shall be made in open court - Open court hearing
can be traced from s.327 of Cr.P.C. and s.153-B of IPC - Thus all
the courts in India are open to the public, except when administration
of justice requires restriction to public access - Publication of court
proceedings of Supreme Court is a facet of the status of Supreme
Court as a Court of Record by virtue of Art. 129 of the Constitution
- Court can take the aid of technology for actualization of right of
access to justice or right to open justice and public trial, right to
know the development of law and right of justice at the doorstep of
the litigant - In the process, large segment of persons viz. entrants
in legal profession, journalists, civil society, activists, academicians
or students of law etc. would be able to view live proceedings in
propria persona on real time basis - This will epitomize transparency,
good governance and accountability - However, there may be cases
in which live streaming of proceedings may not be desirable as that
might affect the cause of administration of justice or right to dignity
and privacy of the litigants or witnesses - In case of conflict between
competing constitutional rights, the conflict needs to be harmonised
so as to give maximum expression to each right - Therefore,
regulatory framework is required to be formulated for live streaming
of judicial proceedings of Supreme Court - The project of live
streaming of court proceedings of Supreme Court must be
implemented in a progressive, structured and phased manner with
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 57
57
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
safeguards to ensure holistic achievement of purpose of live
streaming without interfering with the administration of justice or
the dignity and majesty of the Court and without impinging upon
any rights of the litigants or witnesses - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - s. 153-B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.327.
Allowing the Writ petitions, the Court
HELD:
Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (for himself and Dipak Misra, CJI):
1. Open trials and access to the public during hearing of
cases before the Court is an accepted proposition. As regards
the pronouncement of judgments by the Supreme Court, there is
an express stipulation in Article 145(4) of the Constitution that
such pronouncements shall be made in open Court. Indeed, no
such express provision is found in the Constitution regarding
"open Court hearing" before the Supreme Court, but that can be
traced to provisions such as Section 327 of Cr.P.C. and Section
153-B of CPC. [Para 6][71-E-F]
2. Live streaming of Court proceedings has the potential
of throwing up an option to the public to witness live court
proceedings which they otherwise could not have due to logistical
issues and infrastructural restrictions of Courts; and would also
provide them with a more direct sense of what has transpired.
Thus, technological solutions can be a tool to facilitate actualization
of the right of access to justice bestowed on all and the litigants
in particular, to provide them virtual entry in the Court precincts
and more particularly in Court rooms. In the process, a large
segment of persons, be it entrants in the legal profession,
journalists, civil society activists, academicians or students of
law will be able to view live proceedings in propria persona on
real time basis. [Para 8][73-B-C]
3. Live streaming of Court proceedings is feasible due to
the advent of technology and, in fact, has been adopted in other
jurisdictions across the world. Live streaming of Court
proceedings, in one sense, with the use of technology is to
"virtually" expan

## Text

_Characters 0–39,912 of 192,796. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39912 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI
v.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Arts. 19(1)(a), 21 and 145(4) - Live streaming of proceedings
of cases in Supreme Court having public importance - Sought by
filing Writ Petition u/Art.32 - Held: Open trials and its access to the
public is an accepted proposition - Indian legal system subscribes
to the concept of open courts - Art.145(4) stipulates that
pronouncements shall be made in open court - Open court hearing
can be traced from s.327 of Cr.P.C. and s.153-B of IPC - Thus all
the courts in India are open to the public, except when administration
of justice requires restriction to public access - Publication of court
proceedings of Supreme Court is a facet of the status of Supreme
Court as a Court of Record by virtue of Art. 129 of the Constitution
- Court can take the aid of technology for actualization of right of
access to justice or right to open justice and public trial, right to
know the development of law and right of justice at the doorstep of
the litigant - In the process, large segment of persons viz. entrants
in legal profession, journalists, civil society, activists, academicians
or students of law etc. would be able to view live proceedings in
propria persona on real time basis - This will epitomize transparency,
good governance and accountability - However, there may be cases
in which live streaming of proceedings may not be desirable as that
might affect the cause of administration of justice or right to dignity
and privacy of the litigants or witnesses - In case of conflict between
competing constitutional rights, the conflict needs to be harmonised
so as to give maximum expression to each right - Therefore,
regulatory framework is required to be formulated for live streaming
of judicial proceedings of Supreme Court - The project of live
streaming of court proceedings of Supreme Court must be
implemented in a progressive, structured and phased manner with
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 57
57
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
safeguards to ensure holistic achievement of purpose of live
streaming without interfering with the administration of justice or
the dignity and majesty of the Court and without impinging upon
any rights of the litigants or witnesses - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - s. 153-B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.327.
Allowing the Writ petitions, the Court
HELD:
Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (for himself and Dipak Misra, CJI):
1. Open trials and access to the public during hearing of
cases before the Court is an accepted proposition. As regards
the pronouncement of judgments by the Supreme Court, there is
an express stipulation in Article 145(4) of the Constitution that
such pronouncements shall be made in open Court. Indeed, no
such express provision is found in the Constitution regarding
"open Court hearing" before the Supreme Court, but that can be
traced to provisions such as Section 327 of Cr.P.C. and Section
153-B of CPC. [Para 6][71-E-F]
2. Live streaming of Court proceedings has the potential
of throwing up an option to the public to witness live court
proceedings which they otherwise could not have due to logistical
issues and infrastructural restrictions of Courts; and would also
provide them with a more direct sense of what has transpired.
Thus, technological solutions can be a tool to facilitate actualization
of the right of access to justice bestowed on all and the litigants
in particular, to provide them virtual entry in the Court precincts
and more particularly in Court rooms. In the process, a large
segment of persons, be it entrants in the legal profession,
journalists, civil society activists, academicians or students of
law will be able to view live proceedings in propria persona on
real time basis. [Para 8][73-B-C]
3. Live streaming of Court proceedings is feasible due to
the advent of technology and, in fact, has been adopted in other
jurisdictions across the world. Live streaming of Court
proceedings, in one sense, with the use of technology is to
"virtually" expand the Court room area beyond the physical four
walls of the Court rooms. Technology is evolving with increasing
swiftness whereas the law and the courts are evolving at a much
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
59
more measured pace. Introducing and integrating such technology
into the courtrooms would give the viewing public a virtual
presence in the courtroom and also educate them about the
working of the court. [Para 9][73-E-G]
4. By providing "virtual" access of live court proceedings
to one and all, it will effectuate the right of access to justice or
right to open justice and public trial, right to know the
developments of law and including the right of justice at the
doorstep of the litigants. Open justice, after all, can be more than
just a physical access to the courtroom rather, it is doable even
"virtually" in the form of live streaming of court proceedings and
have the same effect. [Para 12][102-G-H]
5. Publication of court proceedings of the Supreme Court
is a facet of the status of this Court as a Court of Record by
virtue of Article 129 of the Constitution, whose acts and
proceedings are enrolled for perpetual memory and testimony.
Further, live streaming of court proceedings in the prescribed
digital format would be an affirmation of the constitutional rights
bestowed upon the public and the litigants in particular. [Para
13][103-A-B]
6. While doing so, regard must be had to the fact that just
as the dignity and majesty of the Court is inviolable, the issues
regarding privacy rights of the litigants or witnesses whose cases
are set down for hearing, as also other exceptional category of
cases of which live streaming of proceedings may not be desirable
as it may affect the cause of administration of justice itself, are
matters which need to be identified and a proper regulatory
framework must be provided in that regard by formulating rules
in exercise of the power under Article 145 of the Constitution.
[Para 13][103-C]
7. In case of conflict between competing Constitutional
rights, a sincere effort must be made to harmonise such conflict
in order to give maximum expression to each right while
minimizing the encroachment on the other rights. In terms of
Section 327 of CrPC and Section 153-B of CPC, only
court-directed matters can be heard in camera and the general
public can be denied access to or to remain in the court building
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
used by the Court. Until such direction is issued by the Court,
the hearing of the case is deemed to be an open court to which
the public generally may have access. The access to the hearing
by the general public, however, would be limited to the size and
capacity of the court room. By virtue of live streaming of court
proceedings, it would go public beyond the four walls of the court
room to which, in a given case, the party or a witness to the
proceedings may have genuine reservations and may claim right
of privacy and dignity. Such a claim will have to be examined by
the concerned Court and for which reason, a just regulatory
framework must be provided for, including obtaining prior consent
of the parties to the proceedings to be live streamed. [Para
13][103-D-F]
8. The Court agrees with the comprehensive guidelines
for live streaming of Court proceedings in the Supreme Court
suggested by the Attorney General for India. The project of live
streaming of the court proceedings of the Supreme Court on the
"internet" and/or on radio and TV through live audio-visual
broadcasting/telecasting universally by an official agency, such
as Doordarshan, having exclusive telecasting rights and/or official
website/mobile application of the Court, must be implemented in
a progressive, structured and phased manner, with certain
safeguards to ensure that the purpose of live streaming of
proceedings is achieved holistically and that it does not interfere
with the administration of justice or the dignity and majesty of
the Court hearing the matter and/or impinge upon any rights of
the litigants or witnesses. The entire project will have to be
executed in phases, with certain phases containing sub-phases
or stages. [Para 14][103-G-H; 104-A-B]
9. Until a full-fledged module and mechanism for live
streaming of the court proceedings of the Supreme Court over
the "internet" is evolved, it would be open to explore the
possibility of implementation of Phase-I of live streaming in
designated areas within the confines of this Court via "intranet"
by use of allocated passwords, as a pilot project. It may be
desirable to keep in mind other measures to be taken for efficient
management of the entire project. [Paras 15, 16][105-D, G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
10. Thus, the cause brought before this Court by the
protagonists in larger public interest, deserves acceptance so as
to uphold the constitutional rights of public and the litigants, in
particular. In recognizing that court proceedings ought to be live
streamed, this Court is mindful of and has strived to balance the
various interests regarding administration of justice, including
open justice, dignity and privacy of the participants to the
proceedings and the majesty and decorum of the Courts. [Para
18][107-C-D]
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. [1966] 3 SCR 744 - relied on.
Per Dr D Y Chandrachud, J. (Concurring) :
1.1 Open justice is a long-established principle of common
law systems. It rests on a high pedestal in a liberal democracy as
'a sound and very sacred part of the Constitution of the country
and the administration of justice. [Para 3][108-F]
House of Lords in Scott v Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 at
473; R (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Cunliffe Emma,
"Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches",
(2012) 40 Fed L Rev 385 - referred to.
1.2 The principle of open justice encompasses several
aspects that are central to the fair administration of justice and
the rule of law. It has both procedural and substantive dimensions,
which are equally important. Open justice comprises of several
precepts: The entitlement of an interested person to attend court
as a spectator; The promotion of full, fair and accurate reporting
of court proceedings; The duty of judges to give reasoned
decisions; and Public access to judgments of courts. [Para 5][109F-G; 110-A-B]
1.3 The principle of an open court is a significant procedural
dimension of the broader concept of open justice. Open courts
allow the public to view courtroom proceedings. The idea of open
courts is crucial to maintaining public confidence in the
administration of justice. Open courts ensure a check on the
process of adjudication in judicial proceedings. Publicity about
courtroom proceedings is a mechanism to prevent improbity of
judges. [Para 5][110-B, C-D, E]
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
1.4 Open courts are a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness
or idiosyncrasy. It helps build public confidence in the
administration of justice. The public's trust in the judicial system
depends on their perception of how courts function. Open courts
make it possible for the public to develop reasonable perceptions
about the judiciary, by enabling them to directly observe judicial
behaviour, and the processes and outcomes of a case. [Para 6][111A-B]
1.5 Public confidence in the judiciary and in the process of
judicial decision making is crucial for preserving the rule of law
and to maintain the stability of the social fabric. Peoples' access
to the court signifies that the public is willing to have disputes
resolved in court and to obey and accept judicial orders. Open
courts effectively foster public confidence by allowing litigants
and members of the public to view courtroom proceedings and
ensure that the judges apply the law in a fair and impartial manner.
[Para 7][112-D-E, F]
AG v. Leveller Magazine [1979] AC 440; Grollo v.
Palmer [1995] HCA 2; Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.
Virginia 448 US 555 (1980) - referred to.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990, page 1091;.
The Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, 2014, page
1263 - referred to.
2.1 The concept of open courts is not alien to the Indian
legal system. The Constitution adopts the concept in Article
145(4), which states that the Supreme Court shall be an open
court. Section 153-B of the CPC and Section 327 of the Cr.P.C.
extend the principle of open courts to all civil and criminal courts
in India. [Para 8][112-D-E]
2.2 Hence, all courts in India are open to the public and
function as open courts, except when the administration of justice
requires public access to the court to be restricted. The principle
of open courts in India recognises exceptions which are in the
interest of fair administration of justice. [Para 8][112-D-E]
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. [1966] 3 SCR 744; Olga Tellis
v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 :
[1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 51 - followed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
63
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai
D. Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637 : [1992] 3 SCR 595; Mohd.
Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar (2010) 4 SCC 653 :
[2010] 3 SCR 911 - relied on.
Scott v. Scott - referred to.
2.3 First-hand access to court hearings enables the public
and litigants to witness the dialogue between the judges and the
advocates and to form an informed opinion about the judicial
process. A large segment of the society in India rarely has an
opportunity to attend court proceedings. This is due to constraints
like poverty, illiteracy, distance, cost and lack of awareness about
court proceedings. Litigants depend on information provided by
lawyers about what has transpired during the course of hearings.
Others, who may not be personally involved in a litigation, depend
on the information provided about judicial decisions in
newspapers and in the electronic media. When the description of
cases is accurate and comprehensive, it serves the cause of open
justice. However, if a report on a judicial hearing is inaccurate, it
impedes the public's right to know. Courts, though open in law
and in fact, become far removed from the lives of individual
citizens. This is anomalous because courts exist primarily to
provide justice to them. [Paras 12, 13][117-F-G; 118-A-B]
3.1 In the present age of technology, it is no longer sufficient
to rely solely on the media to deliver information about the
hearings of cases and their outcomes. Technology can enhance
public access, ensure transparency and pave the way for active
citizen involvement in the functioning of state institutions. Courts
must also take the aid of technology to enhance the principle of
open courts by moving beyond physical accessibility to virtual
accessibility. Supreme Court and the High Courts in India have
pro-actively adopted technology to make the judicial process
more accessible, organised, transparent, and simple. [Paras 14,
16][118-B-C, D, F-G]
Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam (2017) 4 SCC
150 : [2017] 5 SCR 513;
Santhini v Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1- referred
to.
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
3.2 The Indian judiciary has incorporated Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) under the aegis of the e-Courts
Integrated Mission Mode Project (e-Courts Project). This has
been a part of the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) which has
been implemented in all High Courts and the District Courts of
India. [Para 17][120-C]
3.3 The e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India and
the Department of Justice, Government of India, through a proper
management of the e-Courts Project have ensured efficiency in
the judicial process across 21,000 courts in the district judiciary
in India. [Para 17][120-E]
3.4 A single unified Case Information System (CIS) Software
has been developed and made available to the entire district
judiciary in India, for catering to the diversified requirements of
the country in terms of local procedures, practices and languages.
CIS Version 3.0 has been made available in all the district and
taluka courts. 15 High Courts are already equipped with CIS
Version 1.0. The e-Committee carried out extensive capacity
building exercises to train judicial officers and administrative staff.
The project is manned and managed by the court staff and the
staff is trained in the use of computers. [Para 17][121-C-D]
3.5 Platforms have been created for service delivery such
as e-Courts Portal; Mobile App; SMS Push; SMS Pull; Automated
E-Mails; Touch Screen Kiosks and Service Centre; E-Payment
and E-Filing. [Para 17 C.3][121-E, G; 122-A, B, C, D, E, F]
3.6 The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) is a public
portal that provides a database of pending and disposed of cases
in various High Courts and District Courts across India. The
NJDG portal njdg.ecourts.gov.in provides transparency in the
judicial system to all citizens by allowing them to view statistics
of cases pending before various courts. The World Bank has also
acknowledged NJDG as a significant innovation. It serves as a
national judicial data warehouse that may be used to shape
legislative policy. Other facilities created to speed up justice
delivery are (NSTEP) National Software and Tracking of
Electronic Process and Video Conferencing. [Para 17 C.4 and
C.5][122-G-H; 123-A, C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
65
3.7 Advancement in technology and increased internet
penetration has facilitated transmission of live or pre-recorded
video feed to devices like computers, tabs and mobiles. Livewebcast or streaming of court proceedings in real time can be
implemented through available technological solutions. Livewebcast or streaming is the fastest method for communicating
and is most suited for connecting geographically dispersed
audiences. [Para 17][123-E]
3.8 The time has come for this Court to take a step further
in adopting technology and to enable live-streaming of its
proceedings. Live-streaming of courtroom proceedings is an
extension of the principle of open courts. Live-streaming will
have the ability to reach a wide number of audiences with the
touch of a button. It will enable litigants and members of the public
to have a virtual experience of courtroom proceedings even
outside the courtroom premises. [Para 17][123-F-G]
3.9 The technology of live-streaming injects radical
immediacy into courtroom proceedings. Introduction of livestreaming will effectuate the public's right to know about court
proceedings. It will reduce the public's reliance on second-hand
narratives to obtain information about important judgments of
the Court and the course of judicial hearings. Viewing court
proceedings will also serve an educational purpose. Livestreaming and broadcasting will also increase the reach of the
courts as it can penetrate to every part of the country. It will
enhance the rule of law and promote better understanding of legal
governance as part of the functioning of democracy. It will remove
physical barriers to viewing court proceedings by enabling the
public to view proceedings from outside courtroom premises.
This will also reduce the congestion which is currently plaguing
courtrooms. It will reduce the need for litigants to travel to the
courts to observe the proceedings of their cases. It is a significant
instrument of enhancing the accountability of judicial institutions
and of all those who participate in the judicial process. Delay in
the dispensation of justice is a matter of serious concern. Livestreaming of court proceedings will enable members of the public
to know of the causes of adjournments and the reasons why
hearings are delayed. Above all, live-streaming as an extension
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
of the principle of open courts will ensure that the interface
between a court hearing with virtual reality will result in the
dissemination of information in the widest possible sense,
imparting transparency and accountability to the judicial process.
[Para 18][123-H; 124-A-B, C, D, E-G; 124-B]
4. Broadcasting of courtroom proceedings emerged in
several countries through judicial decisions. Further, most
jurisdictions follow certain common practices such as (i) a minimal
delay in live broadcast; (ii) retention of the copyright with the
court; (iii) conducting a pilot project before introducing
broadcasting for all cases; (iv) excluding certain categories of
cases where the interests of justice warrant that the hearings
should not be webcast or streamed; and (v) conferment of power
on the presiding judge to regulate the live transmission. Every
jurisdiction has a set of limitations to which the broadcast is
subject. Broadcast is usually not permitted when it impedes the
administration of justice. [Para 20][134-D-F]
5. Live-streaming of court proceedings is manifestly in
public interest. It is an extension of the principle of open justice
and open courts. However, the process of live-streaming should
be subjected to carefully structured guidelines. Initially, a pilot
project may be conducted for about three months, by livestreaming only cases of national and constitutional importance in
the Chief Justice's Court. Progressively, as and when the
infrastructure is ready, this Court can expand the ambit of livestreaming to cover all cases (except for the ones which are
excluded). [Para 21][134-F-G; 135-A-B]
6. Access to justice can never be complete without the
litigant being able to see, hear and understand the course of
proceedings first hand. Apart from this, live-streaming is an
important facet of a responsive judiciary which accepts and
acknowledges that it is accountable to the concerns of those who
seek justice. Live-streaming is a significant instrument of
establishing the accountability of other stake-holders in the
justicing process, including the Bar. Moreover, the Government
as the largest litigant has to shoulder the responsibility for the
efficiency of the judicial process. Full dissemination of knowledge
and information about court proceedings through live-streaming
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
67
thus subserves diverse interests of stake holders and of society
in the proper administration of justice. [Para 23][135-B-G]
7. The need for live-streaming of proceedings applies with
equal and, in some respects, greater force to proceedings of cases
in the district judiciary and the High Courts. It is to the Courts
comprised in the district judiciary that citizens turn as a point of
first access for remedying injustice. At the tip of the pyramid is
the jurisdiction of this Court. In terms of volume, the largest
amount of litigation emanates in the district judiciary, followed by
the High Courts. The engagement of the district judiciary in
resolving injustices faced by citizens requires that every citizen
should have full access to and knowledge about the proceedings
before those courts. Equally, the principle of an open court would
merit that proceedings before the High Courts should also be
live-streamed. The Chief Justices of the High Courts should be
commended to consider the adoption of live-streaming both in
the High Courts and in the district judiciaries in phases,
commensurate with available resources and technical support.
The High Courts would have to determine the modalities for doing
so by framing appropriate rules. [Paras 22, 24][135-B-D; 136-B]
8. Determining the modalities for live-streaming of the
proceedings of this Court can appropriately be dealt with under
the Rules which should be framed in pursuance of Article 145(1).
Regulating, generally, the practice and procedure of the Court
would extend to formulating Rules for live-streaming. [Para
25][136-E]
9. The model guidelines are of a suggested nature and will
not detract from the authority of the Court to frame Rules under
Article 145(1) in order to determine all the modalities, including
(i) the phases in which live-streaming shall be introduced; (ii)
the types of cases for which live-streaming of cases will be
provided; (iii) authorising the use of appropriate technology; (iv)
the agencies through which live-streaming will be implemented;
(v) other facets for implementation; and (vi) laying down norms
for the use of the feed. [Para 9][137-C-D]
10. Model guidelines are suggested for broadcasting of the
proceedings and other judicial events of the Supreme Court of
India as regards : Kind of matters to be live-streamed; manner
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
of live-streaming; technical specifications for live-streaming; and
archiving. The Registry will make one or more rooms or a hall
available within the premises of the Supreme Court for the
purpose of broadcasting the proceedings. Multiple screens along
with the other necessary infrastructural facilities shall be installed,
for enabling litigants, journalists, interns, visitors and lawyers to
view the courtroom proceedings in the broadcast room(s). Special
arrangements will be made for the differently abled. [Para 26][137D-E; 138-D; 139-C-D; 140-A]
11. The Supreme Court shall hold exclusive copyright over
videos streamed online and archived with the Registry; and reuse, capture, re-editing or redistribution, or creating derivative
works or compiling of the broadcast or video footage, in any form,
shall not be permitted except as may be notified in the terms and
conditions of use and without the written permission of the
Registry. [Para 26][140-E-F]
Case Law Reference
In the judgment of A. M. Khanwilkar, J.
[1966] 3 SCR 744
relied on
Para 1
In the judgment of Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.
[1966] 3 SCR 744
followed
Para 9
[1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 51
followed
Para 10
[1992] 3 SCR 595
relied on
Para 11
[2010] 3 SCR 911
relied on
Para 12
[2017] 5 SCR 513
referred to
Para 17
(2018) 1 SCC 1
referred to
Para 17
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1232 of 2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 66, 861 and 892 of 2018.
Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv., Shadan Farasat, Ms. Nehmat Kaur,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
69
Ms. Rudrakshi Deo, Virag Gupta, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, P.K. Seth,
Ms. Vanya Gupta, Omprakash Parihar, Jamsed Mistry, Advs. for the
Petitioner.
K.K. Venugopal, AG, P.K. Dey, Mrs. Madhavi Divan,
Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, A.K. Sharma, G.S. Makker, Advs. for the
Respondent.
Swapnil Tripathi (Petitioner-in-person)
Mathews J. Nedumpara (Petitioner-in-person)
A.C. Philip (Petitioner-in-person)
Amrit Pal Singh Khalsa (Petitioner-in-person)
Aman Shekhar (Applicant-in-person)
Byron Sequiera (Applicant-in-person)
Ayush Prakash (Applicant-in-person)
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The petitioners and
interventionists, claiming to be public spirited persons, have sought a
declaration that Supreme Court case proceedings of "constitutional
importance having an impact on the public at large or a large number of
people" should be live streamed in a manner that is easily accessible for
public viewing. Further direction is sought to frame guidelines to enable
the determination of exceptional cases that qualify for live streaming
and to place those guidelines before the Full Court of this Court. To
buttress these prayers, reliance has been placed on the dictum of a nineJudge Bench of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.,1 which has had an occasion to inter
alia consider the arguments of journalists that they had a fundamental
right to carry on their occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution;
that they also had a right to attend the proceedings in court under Article
19(1)(d); and that their right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) included their right to publish a faithful
report of the proceedings which they had witnessed and heard in Court
as journalists. The Court whilst considering the said argument went on
to emphasise about the efficacy of open trials for upholding the legitimacy
and effectiveness of the Courts and for enhancement of public confidence
 1 (1966) 3 SCR 744
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
and support. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant extract from
the said decision propounding about the efficacy of hearing of cases in
open courts, in the following words:
"20..... It is well-settled that in general, all cases brought before
the Courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be heard in
open Court. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for
the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held
subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check
against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful
instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness,
objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public
confidence in the administration of justice is of such great
significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad
proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial Tribunals,
courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the
public admission to the court room. As Bentham has observed :
'In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every
shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place
can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate.
Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the
very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest
of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while
trying under trial (in the sense that) the security of securities is
publicity'. (Scott v. Scott [(1911) All. E.R. 1, 30]) "
2. Indeed, the right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of
the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be
meaningful only if the public gets access to the proceedings as it would
unfold before the Courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live
proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large
or on section of people. This would educate them about the issues which
come up for consideration before the Court on real time basis.
3. As no person can be heard to plead ignorance of law, there is
corresponding obligation on the State to spread awareness about the
law and the developments thereof including the evolution of the law
which may happen in the process of adjudication of cases before this
Court. The right to know and receive information, it is by now well
settled, is a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and for which
reason the public is entitled to witness Court proceedings involving issues
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
71
having an impact on the public at large or a section of the public, as the
case may be. This right to receive information and be informed is
buttressed by the value of dignity of the people. One of the proponents
has also highlighted the fact that litigants involved in large number of
cases pending before the Courts throughout the country will be benefitted
if access to Court proceedings is made possible by way of live streaming
of Court proceedings. That would increase the productivity of the country,
since scores of persons involved in litigation in the courts in India will be
able to avoid visiting the courts in person, on regular basis, to witness
hearings and instead can attend to their daily work without taking leave.
4. As the debate has actuated momentous issues, we had requested
the learned Attorney General for India, Shri K.K. Venugopal to collate
the suggestions given by him as well as the petitioners and interventionists
and submit a comprehensive note for evolving a framework, in the event
the relief claimed in the writ petition(s) was to be granted. We shall
advert to the same a little later.
5. We have heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General
for India, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Virag Gupta
learned counsel, Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned Advocate and
other petitioners/intervenors appearing in-person.
6. Indisputably, open trials and access to the public during hearing
of cases before the Court is an accepted proposition. As regards the
pronouncement of judgments by the Supreme Court, there is an express
stipulation in Article 145(4) of the Constitution that such pronouncements
shall be made in open Court. Indeed, no such express provision is found
in the Constitution regarding "open Court hearing" before the Supreme
Court, but that can be traced to provisions such as Section 327 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 153-B of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which read thus:
Section 327 CrPC
"327. Court to be open.- (1) The place in which any Criminal
Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence
shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the public generally
may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain
them;
Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks
fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not
have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by
the Court.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the
inquiry into the trail of rape or an offence under section 376, section
376-A, section 376-B, section 376-C [section 376-D or section
376-E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)] shall be conducted
in camera;
Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, or on an
application made by either of the parties, allow any particular person
to have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by
the Court;
[Provided further that in camera trial shall be conducted as far
as practicable by a woman Judge or Magistrate.]
(3) Where any proceedings are held under sub-section (2), it shall
not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in
relation to any such proceedings, except with the previous
permission of the Court:]
[Provided that the ban on printing or publication of trail proceedings
in relation to an offence of rape may be lifted, subject to maintaining
confidentiality of name and address of the parties.]"
Section 153-B CPC
"153-B. Place of trial to be deemed to be open Court.- The
place in which any Civil Court is held for the purpose of trying
any suit shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the public
generally may have access so far as the same can conveniently
contain them:
Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, order at
any state of any inquiry into or trial of any particular case, that the
public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access
to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court."
7. Notably, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (supra), this Court, in
no uncertain terms, expounded that open trial is the norm but, at the
same time, cautioned that there may be situations where the administration
of justice itself may make it necessary for the Courts to hold in-camera
trials. Applying the underlying principles, it may be appropriate to have a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
73
proper and balanced regulatory framework before the concept of live
streaming of Court proceedings of this Court or any other courts in India
is put into action.
8. Indubitably, live streaming of Court proceedings has the
potential of throwing up an option to the public to witness live court
proceedings which they otherwise could not have due to logistical issues
and infrastructural restrictions of Courts; and would also provide them
with a more direct sense of what has transpired. Thus, technological
solutions can be a tool to facilitate actualization of the right of access to
justice bestowed on all and the litigants in particular, to provide them
virtual entry in the Court precincts and more particularly in Court rooms.
In the process, a large segment of persons, be it entrants in the legal
profession, journalists, civil society activists, academicians or students
of law will be able to view live proceedings in propria persona on real
time basis. There is unanimity between all the protagonists that live
streaming of Supreme Court proceedings at least in respect of cases of
Constitutional and national importance, having an impact on the public at
large or on a large number of people in India, may be a good beginning,
as is suggested across the Bar.
9. Live streaming of Court proceedings is feasible due to the advent
of technology and, in fact, has been adopted in other jurisdictions across
the world. Live streaming of Court proceedings, in one sense, with the
use of technology is to "virtually" expand the Court room area beyond
the physical four walls of the Court rooms. Technology is evolving with
increasing swiftness whereas the law and the courts are evolving at a
much more measured pace. This Court cannot be oblivious to the reality
that technology has the potential to usher in tangible and intangible benefits
which can consummate the aspirations of the stakeholders and litigants
in particular. It can epitomize transparency, good governance and
accountability, and more importantly, open the vista of the court rooms,
transcending the four walls of the rooms to accommodate a large number
of viewers to witness the live Court proceedings. Introducing and
integrating such technology into the courtrooms would give the viewing
public a virtual presence in the courtroom and also educate them about
the working of the court.
10. We must hasten to add that our attention was invited to the
decision taken by the Advisory Council of the National Mission of Justice
Delivery and Legal Reforms on the proposal to initiate audio video
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
recording on an experimental basis in the Courts. In its meeting held on
26th August, 2014, it was noted that audio video recording of Court
proceedings was proposed in the Policy and Action Plan Document for
Phase II for the e-Courts Mission Mode Project. However, in the meeting
of the E-Committee held on 8th January, 2014, the issue was taken up
but was deferred as it required consultation with Hon'ble Judges of the
Supreme Court and the High Courts. Indeed, consultation with the
Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts may become
essential for framing of rules for live streaming of Court proceedings so
as to ensure that the dignity and majesty of the Court is preserved, and,
at the same time, address the concerns of privacy and confidentiality of
the litigants or witnesses, matters relating to business confidentiality in
commercial disputes including prohibition or restriction of access of
proceedings or trials stipulated by the Central or State legislations, and,
in some cases to preserve the larger public interest owing to the sensitivity
of the case having potential to spring law and order situation or social
unrest. These are matters which may require closer scrutiny. While doing
so, the modules adopted by courts in other jurisdictions may be useful.
The position in some of the Courts in other jurisdictions (arranged in
alphabetical order) as culled out from the material pointed out to us, is as
follows:
I.Australia
1.