INTRODUCTION
The televised trial is one of the most arguable points, that has sparked significant debates in India. The need for balancing change for good and transparency in the judiciary with the potential challenges that it brings has been a plight. The aim was to foster trust and accountability of the public within the judiciary. The nub is to give the sense that justice is not only served but seen. However, the presence of cameras in the courtrooms has extended beyond fair trial and transparency.
The Indian judiciary is the ultimate benefactor of the Indian constitution and justice for all; however, the complexity and inaccessibility of courtrooms have created a demand for a more transparent system, and televised trial is one of the potential solutions. This blog explores the costs and benefits of televised court proceedings in India.
TRACING THE ROOTS OF TELEVISED TRIAL
For the very first time in the US, The O.J. Simpson trial Often cited as the “Trial of the Century” a pivotal moment in the history of the televised trial held in the mid-1990s. The O.J. Simpson trial pioneered the debate around live court proceedings and how it has a remarkable impact on fostering the trust of the public in the judiciary and showcasing the transparency of the judicial system.
While in India the spirit of the judiciary with transparency was rooted in the idea of open courts, as stated in the Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. the State of Maharashtra (1966), the Supreme Court held that open court proceedings are fundamental in ensuring public trust and confidence in the judiciary. While this case did not directly inscribe televised trials, it established the principle of transparency in the Indian judicial system.
Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India (2018), is the case that paved the way for live screening of court proceedings. In this landmark judgment, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court allowed live streaming of court proceedings in matters of national and constitutional importance. The judgment conveys the need for a more transparent and unbarred judicial reform.
GAINS AND PITFALLS OF THE TELEVISED TRIAL
Televised trials have allowed the common public to witness landmark judgments and notable cases at once. The step toward open justice can close the divide between the society and judiciary.
Live court proceedings can also act as a powerful educational tool for upcoming lawyers and students, giving them live insights into court proceedings, arguments, and legitimate reasoning guiding them toward their rights and the laws. The careful perusal of lawyers and judges in public can impel them to work more efficiently and diligently, safeguarding the system from corruption and biased trials.
Open or televised trials give the liberty of justice to reach society and can be seen from remote areas which has also significantly empowered the financially and physically challenged to access justice creating a meaningful difference.
With the gains of broadcasting court proceedings, there are certain pitfalls to it, as it has significantly swelled the concern with the right to privacy and maintaining the sanctity and decorum of the court. Live trials of sensitive cases can transgress the privacy of the parties, witnesses, and litigants as the victims may feel targeted socially and the accused may morally and socially suffer. Although various courts prevent the live broadcasting of certain cases that can damage the privacy of parties or any concerned person.
The live trial can also influence the conduct of judges and lawyers, straining their abilities and can affect the legal process. Moreover, the introduction of technology also requires a sizeable investment and training to ensure seamless and glitch-free broadcasting.
Regardless of these concerns and snags, the broadcasting of the court process is one of the most vital reforms that has been introduced in the Indian legal system. The judgment of Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India (2018) has surely put a leg forward towards digitalization of the court proceedings.
CURRENT SCENARIO OF LIVE TRIAL- BALANCING OUT PROS AND CONS
In recent years various Indian courts have adapted to live trials and broadcasting of court proceedings, the Gujarat High Court was the first court in India to introduce live broadcasting of court procedures, which was followed by the other High Courts.
The Supreme Court’s aim while broadcasting the constitutional bench judgment was the milepost towards displaying judicial activism and the alacrity of the judiciary to accept technology.
To coalesce both technology and judicial proceedings together for a longer time it is imperative to strike a balance between the two. Measures such as framing comprehensive guidelines and policies to outline the cases that can be considered for live streaming while safeguarding the right of privacy and dignity.
Establishing procedures and laws to prevent the misuse of the televised process for monetary or immoral benefit must be prohibited. Laws to prevent the unethical use of court clips in content by unauthorized non-government agencies can be bound to protect the sanctity of the process of law.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS-
- Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
The court in its judgment stated that the petition raises concern regarding the freedom of the press in respect of the right to privacy of the citizens. The case highlighted the delicate difference between a public right to transparency and an individual right to privacy.
- Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2020)
This case yearned for the need for implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Swapnil Tripathi to broadcast the live trial of significant proceedings.
- Secretary General, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal
The case addressed the question of whether the office of the Chief Justice of India falls in the scope of the Right to Information Act, 2005, or not. Later the office of CJI bounds itself as an office of public importance and to protect the transparency and accountability of the judiciary it is important to promote open live-streaming of court processes by framing certain guidelines and procedures to prevent misuse.
CONCLUSION
The debate over the sanctity and irrelevance of live streaming of court trial summons- judges, lawyers, citizens, and the government as well, but to put up the interest of law and transparency in the judiciary to safeguard people’s trust in the Indian legal system, the Televised trial is a key shift to achieve the inclusive and tech-friendly legal system.
Taking our cautious stride toward striking a balance between televised trials and ethical legal practices can surely give us a legal system that can be transparent and justice-friendly.
Author(s) Name: Kaushaki Kumari (DR. C.V Raman University)
