Tripathi v Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India in Tripathi v Supreme Court of India ruled that proceedings of cases before the Supreme Court of constitutional and national importance should be broadcast to the public. The case was brought by various petitioners representing public interest, arguing that public broadcasting would further the principle of open justice and open courts. 

The Court held that the ability to view live broadcasts of Supreme Court proceedings flowed from the right of access to justice under the Constitution. However, it emphasised that this right should not be absolute and introduced Model Guidelines to regulate the courts’ discretion in determining when live broadcasting should be used.

Facts of Tripathi v Supreme Court of India

In 2017, several individuals and groups, including Swapnil Tripathi, Indira Jaising, Mathews J. Nedumpara, and the Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change, filed petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. They sought a declaration that Supreme Court case proceedings of constitutional significance and broad public impact should be live-streamed for public viewing. The petitioners also requested guidelines to determine which cases would qualify for live streaming.

The petitioners based their argument on the 1966 case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, which recognised journalists’ right under Article 19 to publish court proceedings. They contended that live streaming would further the principles of open justice and the public’s right to know while reducing the need for physical court attendance.

Decision Overview

Justice Khanwilkar delivered the majority judgement in Tripathi v Supreme Court of India, supported by Chief Justice Misra, while Justice Chandrachud provided a concurring judgement. The key issue before the Court was whether live streaming of court proceedings should be introduced and under what conditions.

Key Findings of the Court:

1. Unanimous Agreement: The Court noted unanimity among stakeholders that live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings for cases of constitutional and national importance would be beneficial.
2. Right to Access Justice: The Court ruled that the right to access justice under Article 21 includes public access to court proceedings.
3. Balancing Interests: The Court emphasised the need to balance open justice with the privacy rights of litigants and the dignity of courts.
4. Comparative Jurisprudence: The Court reviewed global practices, noting examples from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the UK, the US, and other jurisdictions, where live streaming was subject to varying degrees of regulation.
5. Regulatory Framework: The Court recommended a phased implementation with appropriate safeguards to ensure that live streaming does not undermine the administration of justice.
6. Model Guidelines: The Court endorsed model guidelines proposed by the Attorney General, ensuring transparency while safeguarding privacy and confidentiality.

Concurring Judgement by Justice Chandrachud

Justice Chandrachud underscored the fundamental principle of open justice and its significance for democracy. He emphasised:

• The principle of open courts promotes public confidence and enhances the legitimacy of the judiciary.
• Live streaming can bridge the gap between the judiciary and the public, ensuring transparency and accountability.
• He referenced comparative legal standards and the potential of technology to democratise access to justice.

Model Guidelines for Live Streaming in Tripathi v Supreme Court of India

The Court in Tripathi v Supreme Court of India established key guidelines to govern the live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings:

• Pilot Project Implementation: The live streaming will initially be limited to cases of constitutional and national importance. The presiding judges will have the discretion to grant permission for live streaming.
• Consent Requirements: Prior consent must be obtained from all parties involved. The presiding judge will also have the discretion to revoke permission at any stage of the proceedings.
• Time Delay: Live broadcasts will include a time delay to allow for the editing of confidential information.
• Copyright Ownership: The Supreme Court will retain copyright over all recordings. Unauthorised reproduction or redistribution of the content will be strictly prohibited.
• Technical Oversight: A dedicated technical team will be appointed to manage the streaming operations efficiently.
• Privacy Considerations: Certain sensitive cases, such as those involving family disputes or rape, will be excluded from live streaming to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.
• Judicial Discretion: The presiding judge’s decision regarding live streaming will be final, non-appealable, and binding.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India marked a significant advancement in judicial transparency and access to justice. By permitting live streaming of proceedings in matters of constitutional and national importance, the Court sought to enhance public confidence and understanding of the legal system while ensuring privacy and dignity through carefully designed safeguards. The ruling acknowledges the evolving role of technology in democratising access to information and paves the way for broader implementation of live streaming in the future.