A.

1. Swapnil Triphati v/s Supreme court of India 2018

2. Citation Of the case- Various other countries in which live streaming of cases is allowed by
the authorities were cited by the SC.
3. Corum od Judges- 3 judge-bench
4. Facts of the case- There were three petition filed in this case which were clubbed together-
i) Swapnil Tripathi, a law student studying BBA LL. B at the National Law University,
Jodhpur filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding the live streaming of court
proceedings.

ii) Another PIL was filed by a senior advocate Indira Jaising suggesting the allowance of
video recording of court proceedings by giving significance to the safeguards that are
required to set on the video recording from being misused.

iii) Also a petition was filed by an NGO named Centre for Accountability and systematic
change which demanded the video recording of the court proceedings and that video shall be
uploaded on the official website of the apex court.

5. Issue framed by the Supreme Court-

Whether Live streaming of court proceedings should be introduced in courts?

6. Judgement- The Supreme Court held that the court proceedings shall be live-streamed and
initially this may be started by live streaming the cases that are of constitutional and national
importance and excluding marital, sexual assault cases and cases involving juveniles. The
live streaming of cases shall have a proper regulatory framework.

7. Contention of the Parties-

•By Petitioner- The live streaming of court proceedings should be introduced in courts as it
will bring open access to justice and will act as a significant instrument for enhancing the
accountability of judicial institutions. It will give opportunity to witness the live court
proceedings of matters which have an impact on larger sections of people.

• By Respondent-Cases dealing with sensitive issues like sexual harassment, rape and
matrimonial issues won’t be streamed. The honourable apex court shall lay the model
guidelines for conducting live streaming of cases. There should be a proper regulatory
committee and framework that would be looking after this process.

8. Important paras-
•Cases dealing with sensitive issues like sexual harassment, rape and matrimonial issues
won’t be streamed.
•The apex court requested the Attorney General to frame guidelines to regulate the live
streaming procedure.
Remark- With use, this technology people will able to witness courtroom proceedings which
in turn would also promote accountability, transparency and good governance on behalf of
the government and the judiciary.

9. Cases referred-
[1] Naresh Shridhar Mirjkar v. the State of Maharashtra, [1996] 3 S.C.R 744

[2] Santhini v. Vijaya Venketes, [2018] 1 SCC 1

[3] Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, [2017] 4 SCC 150

B.
The judgement of Swapnil Thripathi v/s Supreme Court of India, 2018

• The Petition-
In 2017, various individuals and groups (including Swapnil Trapathi, Indira Jaising, Mathews
J. Nedumpara and the Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change) filed petitions before
the Supreme Court of India under article 32 of the Constitution seeking 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 manner that is easily
accessible for public viewing”. In addition, they sought guidelines from the Court to enable
the future determination of cases that would qualify for live streaming.

• The judgement-
The Supreme Court of India ruled that proceedings of cases before the Supreme Court of
constitutional and national importance should be broadcast to the public. This case had been
brought to the court by various petitioners, representing the public interest, arguing that such
public broadcast would further the principle of open justice and open courts. The Court held
that the ability to view live broadcasts of the Supreme Court proceedings flowed from the
right of access to justice in the Constitution, but said that this right should not be absolute and
provided a set of Model Guidelines which should govern the courts’ discretion on when such
broadcast should be used.

•What changes did this Judgement brought in the Indian Judiciary system?
1. Framework for the virtual broadcast of the courtroom proceedings were designed.
2. Guidelines were laid down by the Attort General of India.
3. The use of technology was introduced in the proceedings of the court.

This judgment summarized why live streaming of proceedings would be beneficial: it allows
immediate, virtual access to courtrooms and would remove physical barriers to attending
court; it would facilitate the right to know about court proceedings and reduce the reliance on
second-hand narratives and assist in legal education; it would “enhance the rule of law and
promote better understanding of legal governance as part of the functioning of democracy”;
and that as “sunlight is the best disinfectant” live streaming would enhance judicial
accountability and transparency.

• Challenges which arose while shifting to virtual court during the Pandemic covid-19.
The digital court platform can seem to offer wider access to justice, but this would only be
possible if every element involved in the framework, such as judges, advocates, court staffs,
litigants etc were involved. There are far-reaching practical problems in the use of the digital
platform. Virtual hearings conducted by the Supreme Court was far from satisfactory" and
"profoundly disappointing," was the opinion of the President of the Supreme Court Bar
Association and Senior Advocate.

Key issues that were highlighted were-

1. Accessibility issues
2. Obsolete audio-video equipment
3. Lack of power backup
4. Most significantly, digital literacy among people.

Besides technological issues and economic costs, there will also be a large number of legal
disputes in the implementation process. Major will involve the risk of a malicious testimony
of witnesses and false evidence. The conventional legal method requires the court to
investigate and analyse the testimony of witnesses along with their acts, which also enable
lawyers to uncover the facts. It would not be possible to do so in the case of virtual trials and
there would be sufficient space for the parties to testify falsely. The online platform also
presents a possibility to identify fraud on the part of the parties or any third party, since there
would be comparatively less human oversight compared to physical hearings.

•Modern Legal system and working of court during Covid-19-

Until appropriate rules are framed by the High Courts, videoconferencing will be used, the
top court directed. High Courts can use any application which works in their jurisdiction for
video conferencing, the judges said, adding that all courts have to make appropriate
arrangements for litigants who cannnot access videoconferencing facilities.The court,
however, barred the recording of evidence through videoconferencing. If evidence must be
recorded, the presiding officer will ensure that distance is maintained inside the courtroom,
the judges said, allowing the lower courts the power to restrict entry inside the court-room.
The courts also have to maintain a helpline for grievances regarding video feed and line
during and immediately after the hearing, the top court said.

CONCLUSION
Undoubtedly, this is an occasion for the Indian Judiciary to promote and accept the virtual
framework for hearing cases and to proceed even after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Technological advances and developments have penetrated people's lives, and equally
accessible technologies can be used by the Court to minimize the pendency of litigation,
speed up the disposition of cases, and to handle the case lists effectively.