https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462015 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462015 Broadcasting/ live streaming of court proceedings - Seeking declaration for Open trials and access to the public during hearing of cases before the Supreme Court case proceedings of "constitutional importance" - obligation on the State to spread awareness about the law and the developments - right to know and receive information - fundamental right to carry occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - right to attend the proceedings in court under Article 19(1)(d) - right to freedom of speech and expression included their right to publish a faithful report of the proceedings - efficacy of open trials for upholding the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Courts and for enhancement of public confidence and support. HELD THAT:- International courts have also embraced the idea of broadcasting their court proceedings. The International Criminal Court (ICC) permits televising of its cases, although with a thirty minute delay. The ICC has a YouTube channel where it broadcasts case proceedings, press conferences, and informative videos in different languages. In the European Court on Human Rights (ECHR), all hearings are permitted to be made public, unless specifically disallowed by the Court. The broadcast is available on the Court's website on the same day. Broadcast of morning sessions is put up by the afternoon, and the afternoon sessions by evening. The ECHR states that all hearings are filmed and broadcast of the court's website on the day itself, from 14:30 (local time) onwards On examining the practices followed by the jurisdictions discussed, it appears that 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. 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. The pattern of litigation in our country resembles a pyramid. The courts within the district judiciary represent the large base of the pyramid where citizens have the greatest interface. 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 which has been espoused in this judgment would merit that proceedings before the High Courts should also be live-streamed. Live-streaming of proceedings is crucial to the dissemination of knowledge about judicial proceedings and granting full access to justice to the litigant. 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 thus subserves diverse interests of stake holders and of society in the proper administration of justice. For lawyers and judges familiar with the cocoon of a physical court room, live-streaming would require attitudinal changes. They include the maintenance of order and sequencing of oral arguments. Judges in charge of their courts would have to devote attention to case management. But these demands are necessary incidents of the challenges of our time. Slow as we have been to adapt to the complexities of our age, it is nonetheless necessary for the judiciary to move apace with technology. By embracing technology, we would only promote a greater degree of confidence in the judicial process. Hence, 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. 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. The Supreme Court shall hold exclusive copyright over videos streamed online and archived with the Registry; and Re-use, 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530