Transparency by default can curb opaque court practices, protect judicial independence, and strengthen public confidence in justice administration.
Transparency by default is proposed as a structural response to corruption concerns, forum shopping, informal influence, courtroom disruption, lawyer boycotts, and institutional mistrust. Suggested measures include continuous digital filing, traceable electronic submission of all materials for judicial consideration, elimination of informal physical submissions, routine audio-visual recording and transcription of proceedings, digital preservation, public access, and live-streaming subject to limited privacy and security safeguards. Digital audit trails and public records are intended to protect litigants and judicial officers, reduce opacity, and reinforce adjudication based on law and process rather than influence. (AI Summary)

Excess enrolment fees found unlawful, capped to statutory limit and prospective effect bars retrospective refunds.
Excess fees charged by State Bar Councils for advocate enrolment were held unlawful as beyond statutory authority and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g), because the Advocates Act provides a complete code and limits enrolment charges; the Court capped fees to the statutory amount but gave the decision prospective effect and declined to order refunds of previously collected excess fees. (AI Summary)