Delhi High Court Hears Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Plea on Live-Streaming Court Proceedings
- ByAdmin --
- 31 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Delhi High Court recently heard a significant plea filed by senior politician Lalu Prasad Yadav, seeking directions for the live-streaming of court proceedings. The petition highlights the growing demand for transparency and public access in the judicial process, urging the court to take proactive measures in this regard.
Background of the Petition
Lalu Prasad Yadav’s plea comes amid a broader debate on the accessibility of judicial proceedings in India. While the Indian judiciary has traditionally maintained open court principles, actual access for the public and media remains limited. The plea advocates for live-streaming as a modern tool to ensure transparency, prevent misinformation, and promote public confidence in the justice system.
Legal Framework Supporting Open Courts
The plea rests on the constitutional guarantee of the Right to Access Justice, implicit under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures the right to a fair and public trial. Further, the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) promotes transparency in government functions, which arguably includes the judiciary’s accountability to the public.
The principle of open courts, long established under common law, mandates that court proceedings should be accessible to the public unless restricted for specific reasons such as national security, privacy, or public order. The Supreme Court of India, in several judgments, has reiterated the importance of openness in judicial proceedings.
Judicial Precedents on Live-Streaming
India’s apex court has previously taken steps towards transparency. For instance, in Bar Council of India vs. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court permitted the live-streaming of certain court proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic to maintain access amid lockdown restrictions.
Moreover, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and various High Courts’ rules provide limited scope for media coverage but do not explicitly mandate live-streaming of all court proceedings. This gap in procedural rules has left room for petitions like that of Lalu Prasad Yadav, who seeks a comprehensive framework.
Arguments Presented in the Plea
- Transparency and Accountability: The plea emphasizes that live-streaming will enhance judicial transparency, allowing citizens to witness the judicial process in real-time and build trust in the judiciary.
- Public Interest and Education: By making court proceedings accessible, the public can better understand legal processes, fostering greater awareness and civic engagement.
- Technological Feasibility: With advancements in technology, live-streaming court proceedings is technically feasible and has been successfully implemented in other countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
Concerns and Counterarguments
While live-streaming promotes openness, there are valid concerns including:
- Privacy and Security: Sensitive cases involving minors, victims of sexual offenses, or national security matters require discretion to protect privacy and maintain order.
- Judicial Decorum: Courts must ensure that live coverage does not lead to sensationalism or disrupt the dignity of proceedings.
- Technical and Logistical Challenges: Implementing a secure, reliable live-streaming infrastructure requires investment and training.
Legal Provisions Relevant to Live-Streaming
- Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws, underscoring the principle that all citizens should have equal access to judicial processes.
- Article 19(1)(a) ensures the freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to receive and disseminate information, supporting arguments for public access to court proceedings.
- The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly Sections 2(c) and 3, empowers courts to penalize actions that scandalize or lower the authority of the judiciary, cautioning against misuse of live coverage.
- The Information Technology Act, 2000, regulates electronic dissemination of information, necessitating safeguards in live-streaming protocols to prevent cyber threats and unauthorized recordings.
International Practices
Countries like the US have long permitted live coverage of trials, subject to judicial discretion. The UK allows live audio and video feeds in certain courts. These practices serve as useful models for India, balancing transparency with judicial decorum.
Way Forward: Balanced Implementation
The Delhi High Court’s hearing on this plea signals an important moment in India’s judicial transparency movement. A balanced approach is essential, which may include:
- Framing comprehensive guidelines under the Advocates Act, 1961 and respective High Court rules.
- Limiting live-streaming to non-sensitive cases or only partial proceedings.
- Providing training to judges and court staff on managing digital broadcasts.
- Ensuring robust cybersecurity measures.
Conclusion
Lalu Prasad Yadav’s plea for live-streaming court proceedings challenges the judiciary to embrace technology and transparency while safeguarding judicial integrity. As courts deliberate, the outcome could pave the way for a more accessible and accountable justice system in India, reflecting democratic values enshrined in the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments