Live-Streaming Has Changed How we View Courtroom Accountability

The judicial system has not been left untouched in a world increasingly defined by digital transparency. Courtroom live-streaming, once unthinkable due to its perceived threat to the sanctity of judicial proceedings, is now rapidly gaining momentum as a tool to enhance accountability and transparency.

At the heart of this shift is the public's demand for a justice system that can be scrutinised in real-time, one that holds judges accountable not only for their rulings but also for their conduct within the courtroom.

This article explores the transformative role live-streaming has played in shaping the way we view judicial accountability. Using recent incidents, such as the controversial remarks made by Karnataka High Court Justice V. Srishananda, we will delve into how this technological shift has highlighted the importance of judicial decorum, the potential consequences of misconduct, and the delicate balance between transparency and the judicial process.

The Evolution of Live-Streaming in Indian Courts

The decision to live-stream court proceedings in India began as a response to the growing demand for transparency in the judicial process. In 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in its landmark decision in Swapnil Tripathi versus Supreme Court of India, held that live-streaming was a fundamental right of access to justice under Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.

The court observed that transparency was a vital component of judicial accountability and that live-streaming could enhance the quality of judicial conduct.

Moreover, in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar versus State of Maharashtra and Ors., the court held that “courts must take the aid of tech to enhance open court move beyond physical accessibility to virtual accessibility”. 

The Supreme Court, in the case of Supt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs versus Satyen Bhowmick (1981), reaffirmed the requirement of “in-camera proceedings” wherever needed from time to time.

These decisions ushered in a new era for the Indian judiciary, where the concept of ‘open courts’ was no longer limited to the physical confines of a courtroom.

Judicial proceedings became accessible to the broader public, embodying transparency in its truest sense.

For many, this was a welcome change, offering citizens the chance to witness the judicial process firsthand. But with increased visibility came increased scrutiny— not just of the rulings handed down, but of the language of the judges themselves.

Justice Srishananda and Dangers of Unchecked Judicial Conduct

Justice V. Srishananda’s controversial remarks serve as a case study of the perils of live-streaming courtroom proceedings. During a hearing, he referred to a Muslim-dominated area in Bengaluru as “Pakistan” , a communal and inflammatory comment that sparked outrage.

In another instance, he made gender-biased remarks toward a female advocate in a matrimonial dispute, revealing deep-seated biases that had no place in a court of law. These incidents, captured on camera and circulated widely, put judicial conduct in the spotlight, raising serious questions about how judges are held accountable for their words and actions.

What made these incidents even more troubling was not just the nature of the comments but the lack of immediate accountability. Had these remarks not been captured on live-stream, they might have gone unnoticed or been minimised. The very fact that the public could witness these incidents in real time forced the judiciary to confront the reality that the conduct of judges is now open to widespread scrutiny.

Justice Srishananda’s actions were not just personal missteps, they became a reflection of a larger issue within the judiciary— an issue of unchecked authority and a lack of accountability.

Importance of Judicial Decorum in Age of Transparency

Judges occupy a unique position in society. They are entrusted with the immense responsibility of upholding the rule of law and dispensing justice fairly and impartially.

As such, their conduct inside the courtroom must be beyond reproach. The introduction of live-streaming into courtrooms has only heightened this expectation, as every word, gesture and action is now subject to public observation.

Judicial decorum— the professional and respectful behaviour expected of judges— is not merely a formality. It is a safeguard for the integrity of the judicial process. When judges allow their biases to seep into their conduct, whether through gendered comments or communal remarks, they compromise the very notion of impartiality. And in the age of live-streaming, these compromises are no longer hidden behind the closed doors of a courtroom— they are exposed for all to see.

In Justice Srishananda’s case, his remarks damaged the credibility of the judiciary and cast doubts on the impartiality of the proceedings he presided over. His comments about a Muslim-majority area being akin to “Pakistan” were not only insensitive but also reflected a communal bias that could influence his decision-making.

Similarly, his gendered comments toward a female advocate revealed an inherent lack of respect for women in the legal profession, further eroding trust in the system.

Emphasising Transparency in the Judiciary

While hearing a case suo motu, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud remarked, “The answer to sunlight is more sunlight. Not to suppress what happens in the court. This is a very important reminder to everyone. The answer is not to close doors and shut down.”

Underscoring the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings. He argued that live streaming of court cases should continue despite controversies surrounding judges' comments, emphasising that suppressing information is not the solution. This statement serves as a vital reminder of the judiciary's responsibility to maintain openness and accountability in a democratic society.

He also emphasised that the controversies created due to the circulation of objectionable remarks made by judges cannot be a reason to shut down the live-streaming of court proceedings.

The statement was made in response to advice from Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to hold a judicial proceeding in-house to prevent misrepresentation of remarks on social media.

In the related incident, the Supreme Court objected to remarks made by Justice V. Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court and expressed that no part of India should be referred to as Pakistan because that is fundamentally contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation.

Justice Srishananda later expressed regret for his comments, clarifying that he did not intend to offend any community or members of the Bar. The Supreme Court Bench accepted his apology but also issued strong observations regarding the need for judges to refrain from making casual, misogynistic or prejudicial remarks.

In this digital age, where court proceedings are widely reported, the Bench emphasised the importance of judges acting with care and caution in their statements.

Public Perception and Erosion of Judicial Trust

The consequences of such misconduct extend beyond the individual judge. They impact public perception of the judiciary as a whole. Judges are meant to be impartial arbiters of justice, and when they display bias, whether through their rulings or their conduct, they undermine public confidence in the legal system.

The live-streaming of Justice Srishananda’s remarks brought this issue to the forefront, as the public could witness firsthand the prejudices at play in a court of law. The widespread dissemination of these videos on social media further fuelled public outrage, with many calling into question the impartiality of the judiciary. When the public loses faith in the fairness of the legal system, it erodes the very foundation of democracy.

This incident also highlighted the lack of immediate mechanisms to hold judges accountable for their conduct. While there are disciplinary processes in place for judicial misconduct, they are often slow and opaque, leaving the public with little recourse when judges act inappropriately.

In the case of Justice Srishananda, his eventual apology came only after the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the incident, illustrating the reactive nature of judicial accountability.

The Role of Live-Streaming in Shaping Judicial Accountability

The introduction of live-streaming has fundamentally altered the way the public interacts with the judiciary. Previously, courtroom proceedings were confined to the physical audience present in the courtroom, limiting the scope of public scrutiny. Now, with live-streaming, the judiciary is under constant observation, with every decision and every comment subject to real-time critique.

While some may argue that live-streaming puts undue pressure on judges, it is important to recognise that this transparency is essential for ensuring accountability. The power wielded by judges is immense, and with that power comes the responsibility to maintain the highest standards of conduct. Live-streaming ensures that judges are held to these standards, as their actions are now visible to a much larger audience.

Moreover, live-streaming has the potential to democratise access to justice. In a country as vast and diverse as India, many citizens are unable to attend court proceedings in person.

Live-streaming allows them to engage with the judicial process in a way that was previously impossible. It offers a window into the workings of the legal system, fostering a greater understanding of and respect for the rule of law.

Striking a Balance: Transparency Vs. Integrity

While live-streaming offers significant benefits in terms of transparency and accountability, it also poses challenges. One of the primary concerns is the potential for judicial proceedings to become sensationalised.

In a media landscape that thrives on controversy, there is a risk that live-streamed court cases could be reduced to sound bites, with complex legal arguments oversimplified for the sake of public consumption.

Additionally, live-streaming raises concerns about the impact on the integrity of the judicial process. Judges may feel pressured to cater to public opinion or avoid making controversial decisions for fear of backlash. This could lead to a chilling effect, where judges become overly cautious in their rulings, prioritising public perception over the merits of the case.

To mitigate these risks, it is crucial to strike a balance between transparency and the integrity of the judicial process. Live-streaming should be seen as a tool for enhancing accountability, not as a means of turning the courtroom into a spectacle. Judges must be given the space to make independent decisions, free from undue external pressures, while still being held accountable for their conduct.

Conclusion: Future of Judicial Accountability in Digital Age

The introduction of live-streaming into Indian courtrooms has undoubtedly changed the way we view judicial accountability. Incidents such as Justice Srishananda’s controversial remarks have highlighted the importance of judicial decorum and the need for greater transparency in the legal system.

Live-streaming offers a powerful tool for holding judges accountable, but it also poses challenges that must be carefully navigated.

As the judiciary continues to adapt to the digital age, it is essential to ensure that transparency does not come at the expense of the integrity of the judicial process. Judges must uphold the highest standards of conduct, and when they fail to do so, they must be held accountable— not just by their peers, but by the public as well.

Live-streaming has opened the doors to a more transparent and accountable judiciary, but with this increased visibility comes the responsibility to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

Hence, live-streaming is an irreversible trend, increasing scrutiny of judges’ actions. As a result, any misconduct will be more readily exposed and criticised, necessitating judges to uphold high standards of behaviour consistently, regardless of whether their actions are being filmed.

The writer is a fifth-year law student at the faculty of law, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Courtesy: The Leaflet