Holding

Live‑streaming of Supreme Court proceedings is permissible subject to a regulatory framework, phased implementation, and safeguards to protect privacy, dignity and the administration of justice.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional and national importance be live‑streamed and that a regulatory framework be established. The Court examined whether live‑streaming is compatible with the constitutional mandate of open courts, the rights to access justice, privacy, dignity of litigants and the administration of justice. Relying on Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 145(4) and 129 of the Constitution, as well as Sections 153‑B of the CPC and 327 of the CrPC, the Court held that open justice is a fundamental principle and that technology can be used to extend it. However, the Court emphasized the need for safeguards, case‑by‑case discretion, prior consent of parties, a reasonable time‑delay, and a phased implementation through rules under Article 145. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed and the Court directed that live‑streaming be introduced in phases with detailed guidelines.

Issues considered

Whether live‑streaming of Supreme Court proceedings is permissible under the Constitution and existing procedural law.
Whether a regulatory framework is required to balance open justice with privacy, dignity and the administration of justice.
How the principles of open courts and open justice should be applied to modern technology.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. s.153-B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. s.327
Constitution of Indias. Art.129, s. Art.145(4), s. Art.19(1)(a), s. Art.21
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Copyright Act, 1957
Information Technology Act, 2000

Subjects

open justicelive streamingSupreme Courttechnologyaccess to justiceprivacydignityadministration of justiceArticle 145Article 129court transparency

Judgment

[2018] 11 S.C.R. 57 57

SWAPNIL TRIPATHI A
v.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 B
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Arts. 19(1)(a), 21 and 145(4) – Live streaming of proceedings
C
of cases in Supreme Court having public importance – Sought by
filing Writ Petition u/Art.32 – Held: Open trials and its access to the
public is an accepted proposition – Indian legal system subscribes
to the concept of open courts – Art.145(4) stipulates that
pronouncements shall be made in open court – Open court hearing
can be traced from s.327 of Cr.P.C. and s.153-B of IPC – Thus all D
the courts in India are open to the public, except when administration
of justice requires restriction to public access – Publication of court
proceedings of Supreme Court is a facet of the status of Supreme
Court as a Court of Record by virtue of Art. 129 of the Constitution
– Court can take the aid of technology for actualization of right of
E
access to justice or right to open justice and public trial, right to
know the development of law and right of justice at the doorstep of
the litigant – In the process, large segment of persons viz. entrants
in legal profession, journalists, civil society, activists, academicians
or students of law etc. would be able to view live proceedings in
propria persona on real time basis – This will epitomize transparency, F
good governance and accountability – However, there may be cases
in which live streaming of proceedings may not be desirable as that
might affect the cause of administration of justice or right to dignity
and privacy of the litigants or witnesses – In case of conflict between
competing constitutional rights, the conflict needs to be harmonised
G
so as to give maximum expression to each right – Therefore,
regulatory framework is required to be formulated for live streaming
of judicial proceedings of Supreme Court – The project of live
streaming of court proceedings of Supreme Court must be
implemented in a progressive, structured and phased manner with
H
57
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A safeguards to ensure holistic achievement of purpose of live
streaming without interfering with the administration of justice or
the dignity and majesty of the Court and without impinging upon
any rights of the litigants or witnesses – Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 – s. 153-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.327.
B Allowing the Writ petitions, the Court
HELD:
Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (for himself and Dipak Misra, CJI):
1. Open trials and access to the public during hearing of
C cases before the Court is an accepted proposition. As regards
the pronouncement of judgments by the Supreme Court, there is
an express stipulation in Article 145(4) of the Constitution that
such pronouncements shall be made in open Court. Indeed, no
such express provision is found in the Constitution regarding
“open Court hearing” before the Supreme Court, but that can be
D traced to provisions such as Section 327 of Cr.P.C. and Section
153-B of CPC. [Para 6][71-E-F]
2. Live streaming of Court proceedings has the potential
of throwing up an option to the public to witness live court
proceedings which they otherwise could not have due to logistical
E issues and infrastructural restrictions of Courts; and would also
provide them with a more direct sense of what has transpired.
Thus, technological solutions can be a tool to facilitate actualization
of the right of access to justice bestowed on all and the litigants
in particular, to provide them virtual entry in the Court precincts
F and more particularly in Court rooms. In the process, a large
segment of persons, be it entrants in the legal profession,
journalists, civil society activists, academicians or students of
law will be able to view live proceedings in propria persona on
real time basis. [Para 8][73-B-C]
3. Live streaming of Court proceedings is feasible due to
G
the advent of technology and, in fact, has been adopted in other
jurisdictions across the world. Live streaming of Court
proceedings, in one sense, with the use of technology is to
“virtually” expand the Court room area beyond the physical four
walls of the Court rooms. Technology is evolving with increasing
H swiftness whereas the law and the courts are evolving at a much
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 59

more measured pace. Introducing and integrating such technology A
into the courtrooms would give the viewing public a virtual
presence in the courtroom and also educate them about the
working of the court. [Para 9][73-E-G]
4. By providing “virtual” access of live court proceedings
to one and all, it will effectuate the right of access to justice or B
right to open justice and public trial, right to know the
developments of law and including the right of justice at the
doorstep of the litigants. Open justice, after all, can be more than
just a physical access to the courtroom rather, it is doable even
“virtually” in the form of live streaming of court proceedings and
have the same effect. [Para 12][102-G-H] C

5. Publication of court proceedings of the Supreme Court
is a facet of the status of this Court as a Court of Record by
virtue of Article 129 of the Constitution, whose acts and
proceedings are enrolled for perpetual memory and testimony.
Further, live streaming of court proceedings in the prescribed D
digital format would be an affirmation of the constitutional rights
bestowed upon the public and the litigants in particular. [Para
13][103-A-B]
6. While doing so, regard must be had to the fact that just
as the dignity and majesty of the Court is inviolable, the issues E
regarding privacy rights of the litigants or witnesses whose cases
are set down for hearing, as also other exceptional category of
cases of which live streaming of proceedings may not be desirable
as it may affect the cause of administration of justice itself, are
matters which need to be identified and a proper regulatory F
framework must be provided in that regard by formulating rules
in exercise of the power under Article 145 of the Constitution.
[Para 13][103-C]
7. In case of conflict between competing Constitutional
rights, a sincere effort must be made to harmonise such conflict G
in order to give maximum expression to each right while
minimizing the encroachment on the other rights. In terms of
Section 327 of CrPC and Section 153-B of CPC, only
court-directed matters can be heard in camera and the general
public can be denied access to or to remain in the court building
H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A used by the Court. Until such direction is issued by the Court,
the hearing of the case is deemed to be an open court to which
the public generally may have access. The access to the hearing
by the general public, however, would be limited to the size and
capacity of the court room. By virtue of live streaming of court
proceedings, it would go public beyond the four walls of the court
B
room to which, in a given case, the party or a witness to the
proceedings may have genuine reservations and may claim right
of privacy and dignity. Such a claim will have to be examined by
the concerned Court and for which reason, a just regulatory
framework must be provided for, including obtaining prior consent
C of the parties to the proceedings to be live streamed. [Para
13][103-D-F]
8. The Court agrees with the comprehensive guidelines
for live streaming of Court proceedings in the Supreme Court
suggested by the Attorney General for India. The project of live
D streaming of the court proceedings of the Supreme Court on the
“internet” and/or on radio and TV through live audio-visual
broadcasting/telecasting universally by an official agency, such
as Doordarshan, having exclusive telecasting rights and/or official
website/mobile application of the Court, must be implemented in
a progressive, structured and phased manner, with certain
E safeguards to ensure that the purpose of live streaming of
proceedings is achieved holistically and that it does not interfere
with the administration of justice or the dignity and majesty of
the Court hearing the matter and/or impinge upon any rights of
the litigants or witnesses. The entire project will have to be
F executed in phases, with certain phases containing sub-phases
or stages. [Para 14][103-G-H; 104-A-B]
9. Until a full-fledged module and mechanism for live
streaming of the court proceedings of the Supreme Court over
the “internet” is evolved, it would be open to explore the
G possibility of implementation of Phase-I of live streaming in
designated areas within the confines of this Court via “intranet”
by use of allocated passwords, as a pilot project. It may be
desirable to keep in mind other measures to be taken for efficient
management of the entire project. [Paras 15, 16][105-D, G]

H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 61

10. Thus, the cause brought before this Court by the A
protagonists in larger public interest, deserves acceptance so as
to uphold the constitutional rights of public and the litigants, in
particular. In recognizing that court proceedings ought to be live
streamed, this Court is mindful of and has strived to balance the
various interests regarding administration of justice, including
B
open justice, dignity and privacy of the participants to the
proceedings and the majesty and decorum of the Courts. [Para
18][107-C-D]
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. [1966] 3 SCR 744 – relied on.
Per Dr D Y Chandrachud, J. (Concurring) : C
1.1 Open justice is a long-established principle of common
law systems. It rests on a high pedestal in a liberal democracy as
‘a sound and very sacred part of the Constitution of the country
and the administration of justice. [Para 3][108-F]
House of Lords in Scott v Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 at D
473; R (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Cunliffe Emma,
“Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches”,
(2012) 40 Fed L Rev 385 – referred to.
1.2 The principle of open justice encompasses several E
aspects that are central to the fair administration of justice and
the rule of law. It has both procedural and substantive dimensions,
which are equally important. Open justice comprises of several
precepts: The entitlement of an interested person to attend court
as a spectator; The promotion of full, fair and accurate reporting
F
of court proceedings; The duty of judges to give reasoned
decisions; and Public access to judgments of courts. [Para 5][109-
F-G; 110-A-B]
1.3 The principle of an open court is a significant procedural
dimension of the broader concept of open justice. Open courts
allow the public to view courtroom proceedings. The idea of open G
courts is crucial to maintaining public confidence in the
administration of justice. Open courts ensure a check on the
process of adjudication in judicial proceedings. Publicity about
courtroom proceedings is a mechanism to prevent improbity of
judges. [Para 5][110-B, C-D, E] H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A 1.4 Open courts are a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness
or idiosyncrasy. It helps build public confidence in the
administration of justice. The public’s trust in the judicial system
depends on their perception of how courts function. Open courts
make it possible for the public to develop reasonable perceptions
about the judiciary, by enabling them to directly observe judicial
B
behaviour, and the processes and outcomes of a case. [Para 6][111-
A-B]
1.5 Public confidence in the judiciary and in the process of
judicial decision making is crucial for preserving the rule of law
and to maintain the stability of the social fabric. Peoples’ access
C to the court signifies that the public is willing to have disputes
resolved in court and to obey and accept judicial orders. Open
courts effectively foster public confidence by allowing litigants
and members of the public to view courtroom proceedings and
ensure that the judges apply the law in a fair and impartial manner.
D [Para 7][112-D-E, F]
AG v. Leveller Magazine [1979] AC 440; Grollo v.
Palmer [1995] HCA 2; Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.
Virginia 448 US 555 (1980) – referred to.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990, page 1091;.
E The Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, 2014, page
1263 – referred to.
2.1 The concept of open courts is not alien to the Indian
legal system. The Constitution adopts the concept in Article
145(4), which states that the Supreme Court shall be an open
court. Section 153-B of the CPC and Section 327 of the Cr.P.C.
F extend the principle of open courts to all civil and criminal courts
in India. [Para 8][112-D-E]
2.2 Hence, all courts in India are open to the public and
function as open courts, except when the administration of justice
requires public access to the court to be restricted. The principle
G of open courts in India recognises exceptions which are in the
interest of fair administration of justice. [Para 8][112-D-E]
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. [1966] 3 SCR 744; Olga Tellis
v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 :
H [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 51 – followed.
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 63

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai A
D. Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637 : [1992] 3 SCR 595; Mohd.
Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar (2010) 4 SCC 653 :
[2010] 3 SCR 911 – relied on.
Scott v. Scott – referred to.
2.3 First-hand access to court hearings enables the public B
and litigants to witness the dialogue between the judges and the
advocates and to form an informed opinion about the judicial
process. A large segment of the society in India rarely has an
opportunity to attend court proceedings. This is due to constraints
like poverty, illiteracy, distance, cost and lack of awareness about C
court proceedings. Litigants depend on information provided by
lawyers about what has transpired during the course of hearings.
Others, who may not be personally involved in a litigation, depend
on the information provided about judicial decisions in
newspapers and in the electronic media. When the description of
cases is accurate and comprehensive, it serves the cause of open D
justice. However, if a report on a judicial hearing is inaccurate, it
impedes the public’s right to know. Courts, though open in law
and in fact, become far removed from the lives of individual
citizens. This is anomalous because courts exist primarily to
provide justice to them. [Paras 12, 13][117-F-G; 118-A-B] E
3.1 In the present age of technology, it is no longer sufficient
to rely solely on the media to deliver information about the
hearings of cases and their outcomes. Technology can enhance
public access, ensure transparency and pave the way for active
citizen involvement in the functioning of state institutions. Courts F
must also take the aid of technology to enhance the principle of
open courts by moving beyond physical accessibility to virtual
accessibility. Supreme Court and the High Courts in India have
pro-actively adopted technology to make the judicial process
more accessible, organised, transparent, and simple. [Paras 14,
16][118-B-C, D, F-G] G
Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam (2017) 4 SCC
150 : [2017] 5 SCR 513;
Santhini v Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1– referred
to.
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A 3.2 The Indian judiciary has incorporated Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) under the aegis of the e-Courts
Integrated Mission Mode Project (e-Courts Project). This has
been a part of the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) which has
been implemented in all High Courts and the District Courts of
India. [Para 17][120-C]
B
3.3 The e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India and
the Department of Justice, Government of India, through a proper
management of the e-Courts Project have ensured efficiency in
the judicial process across 21,000 courts in the district judiciary
in India. [Para 17][120-E]
C
3.4 A single unified Case Information System (CIS) Software
has been developed and made available to the entire district
judiciary in India, for catering to the diversified requirements of
the country in terms of local procedures, practices and languages.
CIS Version 3.0 has been made available in all the district and
D taluka courts. 15 High Courts are already equipped with CIS
Version 1.0. The e-Committee carried out extensive capacity
building exercises to train judicial officers and administrative staff.
The project is manned and managed by the court staff and the
staff is trained in the use of computers. [Para 17][121-C-D]
E 3.5 Platforms have been created for service delivery such
as e-Courts Portal; Mobile App; SMS Push; SMS Pull; Automated
E-Mails; Touch Screen Kiosks and Service Centre; E-Payment
and E-Filing. [Para 17 C.3][121-E, G; 122-A, B, C, D, E, F]
3.6 The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) is a public
F portal that provides a database of pending and disposed of cases
in various High Courts and District Courts across India. The
NJDG portal njdg.ecourts.gov.in provides transparency in the
judicial system to all citizens by allowing them to view statistics
of cases pending before various courts. The World Bank has also
G acknowledged NJDG as a significant innovation. It serves as a
national judicial data warehouse that may be used to shape
legislative policy. Other facilities created to speed up justice
delivery are (NSTEP) National Software and Tracking of
Electronic Process and Video Conferencing. [Para 17 C.4 and
C.5][122-G-H; 123-A, C-D]
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 65

3.7 Advancement in technology and increased internet A
penetration has facilitated transmission of live or pre-recorded
video feed to devices like computers, tabs and mobiles. Live-
webcast or streaming of court proceedings in real time can be
implemented through available technological solutions. Live-
webcast or streaming is the fastest method for communicating
B
and is most suited for connecting geographically dispersed
audiences. [Para 17][123-E]
3.8 The time has come for this Court to take a step further
in adopting technology and to enable live-streaming of its
proceedings. Live-streaming of courtroom proceedings is an
extension of the principle of open courts. Live-streaming will C
have the ability to reach a wide number of audiences with the
touch of a button. It will enable litigants and members of the public
to have a virtual experience of courtroom proceedings even
outside the courtroom premises. [Para 17][123-F-G]
3.9 The technology of live-streaming injects radical D
immediacy into courtroom proceedings. Introduction of live-
streaming will effectuate the public’s right to know about court
proceedings. It will reduce the public’s reliance on second-hand
narratives to obtain information about important judgments of
the Court and the course of judicial hearings. Viewing court E
proceedings will also serve an educational purpose. Live-
streaming and broadcasting will also increase the reach of the
courts as it can penetrate to every part of the country. It will
enhance the rule of law and promote better understanding of legal
governance as part of the functioning of democracy. It will remove
physical barriers to viewing court proceedings by enabling the F
public to view proceedings from outside courtroom premises.
This will also reduce the congestion which is currently plaguing
courtrooms. It will reduce the need for litigants to travel to the
courts to observe the proceedings of their cases. It is a significant
instrument of enhancing the accountability of judicial institutions G
and of all those who participate in the judicial process. Delay in
the dispensation of justice is a matter of serious concern. Live-
streaming of court proceedings will enable members of the public
to know of the causes of adjournments and the reasons why
hearings are delayed. Above all, live-streaming as an extension
H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A of the principle of open courts will ensure that the interface
between a court hearing with virtual reality will result in the
dissemination of information in the widest possible sense,
imparting transparency and accountability to the judicial process.
[Para 18][123-H; 124-A-B, C, D, E-G; 124-B]
B 4. 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
C 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
D administration of justice. [Para 20][134-D-F]
5. Live-streaming of court proceedings is manifestly in
public interest. It is an extension of the principle of open justice
and open courts. However, the process of live-streaming should
be subjected to carefully structured guidelines. Initially, a pilot
E project may be conducted for about three months, by live-
streaming only cases of national and constitutional importance in
the Chief Justice’s Court. Progressively, as and when the
infrastructure is ready, this Court can expand the ambit of live-
streaming to cover all cases (except for the ones which are
excluded). [Para 21][134-F-G; 135-A-B]
F
6. 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
G 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
H and information about court proceedings through live-streaming
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 67

thus subserves diverse interests of stake holders and of society A
in the proper administration of justice. [Para 23][135-B-G]
7. 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. It is to the Courts
comprised in the district judiciary that citizens turn as a point of B
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 C
before those courts. Equally, the principle of an open court would
merit that proceedings before the High Courts should also be
live-streamed. 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, D
commensurate with available resources and technical support.
The High Courts would have to determine the modalities for doing
so by framing appropriate rules. [Paras 22, 24][135-B-D; 136-B]
8. Determining the modalities for live-streaming of the
proceedings of this Court can appropriately be dealt with under E
the Rules which should be framed in pursuance of Article 145(1).
Regulating, generally, the practice and procedure of the Court
would extend to formulating Rules for live-streaming. [Para
25][136-E]
9. The model guidelines are of a suggested nature and will F
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; G
(v) other facets for implementation; and (vi) laying down norms
for the use of the feed. [Para 9][137-C-D]
10. Model guidelines are suggested for broadcasting of the
proceedings and other judicial events of the Supreme Court of
India as regards : Kind of matters to be live-streamed; manner H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A of live-streaming; technical specifications for live-streaming; and
archiving. The Registry will make one or more rooms or a hall
available within the premises of the Supreme Court for the
purpose of broadcasting the proceedings. Multiple screens along
with the other necessary infrastructural facilities shall be installed,
for enabling litigants, journalists, interns, visitors and lawyers to
B
view the courtroom proceedings in the broadcast room(s). Special
arrangements will be made for the differently abled. [Para 26][137-
D-E; 138-D; 139-C-D; 140-A]
11. The Supreme Court shall hold exclusive copyright over
videos streamed online and archived with the Registry; and re-
C 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. [Para 26][140-E-F]
D Case Law Reference
In the judgment of A. M. Khanwilkar, J.
[1966] 3 SCR 744 relied on Para 1
In the judgment of Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.
E
[1966] 3 SCR 744 followed Para 9
[1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 51 followed Para 10
[1992] 3 SCR 595 relied on Para 11
[2010] 3 SCR 911 relied on Para 12
F
[2017] 5 SCR 513 referred to Para 17
(2018) 1 SCC 1 referred to Para 17
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1232 of 2017.
G
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 66, 861 and 892 of 2018.
Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv., Shadan Farasat, Ms. Nehmat Kaur,
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 69

Ms. Rudrakshi Deo, Virag Gupta, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, P.K. Seth, A
Ms. Vanya Gupta, Omprakash Parihar, Jamsed Mistry, Advs. for the
Petitioner.
K.K. Venugopal, AG, P.K. Dey, Mrs. Madhavi Divan,
Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, A.K. Sharma, G.S. Makker, Advs. for the
Respondent. B
Swapnil Tripathi (Petitioner-in-person)
Mathews J. Nedumpara (Petitioner-in-person)
A.C. Philip (Petitioner-in-person)
Amrit Pal Singh Khalsa (Petitioner-in-person) C
Aman Shekhar (Applicant-in-person)
Byron Sequiera (Applicant-in-person)
Ayush Prakash (Applicant-in-person)
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by D

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The petitioners and
interventionists, claiming to be public spirited persons, have sought a
declaration that Supreme Court case proceedings of “constitutional
importance having an impact on the public at large or a large number of
people” should be live streamed in a manner that is easily accessible for E
public viewing. Further direction is sought to frame guidelines to enable
the determination of exceptional cases that qualify for live streaming
and to place those guidelines before the Full Court of this Court. To
buttress these prayers, reliance has been placed on the dictum of a nine-
Judge Bench of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. Vs. F
State of Maharashtra and Ors.,1 which has had an occasion to inter
alia consider the arguments of journalists that they had a fundamental
right to carry on their occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution;
that they also had a right to attend the proceedings in court under Article
19(1)(d); and that their right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) included their right to publish a faithful G
report of the proceedings which they had witnessed and heard in Court
as journalists. The Court whilst considering the said argument went on
to emphasise about the efficacy of open trials for upholding the legitimacy
and effectiveness of the Courts and for enhancement of public confidence
1
(1966) 3 SCR 744 H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A and support. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant extract from
the said decision propounding about the efficacy of hearing of cases in
open courts, in the following words:
“20….. It is well-settled that in general, all cases brought before
the Courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be heard in
B open Court. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for
the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held
subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check
against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful
instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness,
objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public
C confidence in the administration of justice is of such great
significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad
proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial Tribunals,
courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the
public admission to the court room. As Bentham has observed :
D ‘In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every
shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place
can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate.
Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the
very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest
E of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while
trying under trial (in the sense that) the security of securities is
publicity’. (Scott v. Scott [(1911) All. E.R. 1, 30]) “
2. Indeed, the right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of
the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be
F meaningful only if the public gets access to the proceedings as it would
unfold before the Courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live
proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large
or on section of people. This would educate them about the issues which
come up for consideration before the Court on real time basis.

G 3. As no person can be heard to plead ignorance of law, there is
corresponding obligation on the State to spread awareness about the
law and the developments thereof including the evolution of the law
which may happen in the process of adjudication of cases before this
Court. The right to know and receive information, it is by now well
settled, is a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and for which
H reason the public is entitled to witness Court proceedings involving issues
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 71
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

having an impact on the public at large or a section of the public, as the A
case may be. This right to receive information and be informed is
buttressed by the value of dignity of the people. One of the proponents
has also highlighted the fact that litigants involved in large number of
cases pending before the Courts throughout the country will be benefitted
if access to Court proceedings is made possible by way of live streaming
B
of Court proceedings. That would increase the productivity of the country,
since scores of persons involved in litigation in the courts in India will be
able to avoid visiting the courts in person, on regular basis, to witness
hearings and instead can attend to their daily work without taking leave.
4. As the debate has actuated momentous issues, we had requested
the learned Attorney General for India, Shri K.K. Venugopal to collate C
the suggestions given by him as well as the petitioners and interventionists
and submit a comprehensive note for evolving a framework, in the event
the relief claimed in the writ petition(s) was to be granted. We shall
advert to the same a little later.
5. We have heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General D
for India, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Virag Gupta
learned counsel, Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned Advocate and
other petitioners/intervenors appearing in-person.
6. Indisputably, open trials and access to the public during hearing
of cases before the Court is an accepted proposition. As regards the E
pronouncement of judgments by the Supreme Court, there is an express
stipulation in Article 145(4) of the Constitution that such pronouncements
shall be made in open Court. Indeed, no such express provision is found
in the Constitution regarding “open Court hearing” before the Supreme
Court, but that can be traced to provisions such as Section 327 of the F
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 153-B of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which read thus:
Section 327 CrPC
“327. Court to be open.- (1) The place in which any Criminal
Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence G
shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the public generally
may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain
them;
Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks
fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not
have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by
the Court.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the
inquiry into the trail of rape or an offence under section 376, section
B 376-A, section 376-B, section 376-C [section 376-D or section
376-E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)] shall be conducted
in camera;
Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, or on an
application made by either of the parties, allow any particular person
C to have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by
the Court;
[Provided further that in camera trial shall be conducted as far
as practicable by a woman Judge or Magistrate.]
(3) Where any proceedings are held under sub-section (2), it shall
D not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in
relation to any such proceedings, except with the previous
permission of the Court:]
[Provided that the ban on printing or publication of trail proceedings
in relation to an offence of rape may be lifted, subject to maintaining
E confidentiality of name and address of the parties.]”
Section 153-B CPC
“153-B. Place of trial to be deemed to be open Court.- The
place in which any Civil Court is held for the purpose of trying
any suit shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the public
F
generally may have access so far as the same can conveniently
contain them:
Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, order at
any state of any inquiry into or trial of any particular case, that the
public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access
G to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court.”
7. Notably, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (supra), this Court, in
no uncertain terms, expounded that open trial is the norm but, at the
same time, cautioned that there may be situations where the administration
of justice itself may make it necessary for the Courts to hold in-camera
H trials. Applying the underlying principles, it may be appropriate to have a
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 73
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

proper and balanced regulatory framework before the concept of live A
streaming of Court proceedings of this Court or any other courts in India
is put into action.
8. Indubitably, live streaming of Court proceedings has the
potential of throwing up an option to the public to witness live court
proceedings which they otherwise could not have due to logistical issues B
and infrastructural restrictions of Courts; and would also provide them
with a more direct sense of what has transpired. Thus, technological
solutions can be a tool to facilitate actualization of the right of access to
justice bestowed on all and the litigants in particular, to provide them
virtual entry in the Court precincts and more particularly in Court rooms.
In the process, a large segment of persons, be it entrants in the legal C
profession, journalists, civil society activists, academicians or students
of law will be able to view live proceedings in propria persona on real
time basis. There is unanimity between all the protagonists that live
streaming of Supreme Court proceedings at least in respect of cases of
Constitutional and national importance, having an impact on the public at D
large or on a large number of people in India, may be a good beginning,
as is suggested across the Bar.
9. Live streaming of Court proceedings is feasible due to the advent
of technology and, in fact, has been adopted in other jurisdictions across
the world. Live streaming of Court proceedings, in one sense, with the E
use of technology is to “virtually” expand the Court room area beyond
the physical four walls of the Court rooms. Technology is evolving with
increasing swiftness whereas the law and the courts are evolving at a
much more measured pace. This Court cannot be oblivious to the reality
that technology has the potential to usher in tangible and intangible benefits
which can consummate the aspirations of the stakeholders and litigants F
in particular. It can epitomize transparency, good governance and
accountability, and more importantly, open the vista of the court rooms,
transcending the four walls of the rooms to accommodate a large number
of viewers to witness the live Court proceedings. Introducing and
integrating such technology into the courtrooms would give the viewing G
public a virtual presence in the courtroom and also educate them about
the working of the court.
10. We must hasten to add that our attention was invited to the
decision taken by the Advisory Council of the National Mission of Justice
Delivery and Legal Reforms on the proposal to initiate audio video H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A recording on an experimental basis in the Courts. In its meeting held on
26th August, 2014, it was noted that audio video recording of Court
proceedings was proposed in the Policy and Action Plan Document for
Phase II for the e-Courts Mission Mode Project. However, in the meeting
of the E-Committee held on 8th January, 2014, the issue was taken up
but was deferred as it required consultation with Hon’ble Judges of the
B
Supreme Court and the High Courts. Indeed, consultation with the
Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts may become
essential for framing of rules for live streaming of Court proceedings so
as to ensure that the dignity and majesty of the Court is preserved, and,
at the same time, address the concerns of privacy and confidentiality of
C the litigants or witnesses, matters relating to business confidentiality in
commercial disputes including prohibition or restriction of access of
proceedings or trials stipulated by the Central or State legislations, and,
in some cases to preserve the larger public interest owing to the sensitivity
of the case having potential to spring law and order situation or social
unrest. These are matters which may require closer scrutiny. While doing
D
so, the modules adopted by courts in other jurisdictions may be useful.
The position in some of the Courts in other jurisdictions (arranged in
alphabetical order) as culled out from the material pointed out to us, is as
follows:
I.Australia
E
1. High Court: Allows recordings of its proceedings to be published
on its website2.
Since 1st October, 2013, the High Court of Australia, which is its
apex court, has made available on its website audio-visual recordings of
F all full-court hearings held in Canberra3.
a. The content of the coverage is vetted and recordings are posted
usually within day or two of the hearing;
b. The High Court has issued certain terms for use of such
recordings on its website, which include restrictions on recording
G 2
Available on the Australian High Court website at: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/
recent-av-recordings
3
Media Release: Audio-Video Recordings of Full Court proceedings available on
the Australian High Court website at:
h t t p : / / w w w. h c o u r t . g o v. a u / i n d e x . p h p ? o p t i o n = c o m _ a c y m a i l i n g & c t r l
=archive&task=view&listid=6-judgment-delivery-notification&mailid=28-media-
H release
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 75
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

or copying without prior permission of the Court and retention A
of copyright over the proceedings by the Court4;
c. The High Court permits members of the public to take
photographs inside courtrooms when the Court is not in session,
for private purposes. Audio-video recording of Court
proceedings by private parties is expressly banned. The Court B
however, on certain occasions, permits film crews to film parts
of proceedings like the arrival of the Justices and them sitting
at the bench, the Court staff positioned in the Court, and the
barristers and solicitors at their tables in the courtroom. Such
permission is granted on a case-to-case basis and subject to
certain conditions imposed by the Court5; C

2. Lower Courts6,7: There are no statutory restrictions on media
coverage of lower court proceedings and permission for broadcast of
hearings differs from court to court.
a. Federal Court of Australia: Allows the media to broadcast D
proceedings on a regular basis and also publishes videos of
certain judgment summaries on its website.
4
“Terms of use:
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post,
transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any E
manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval
of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings
in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not
constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking “I agree/play” (when available), you agree to be bound by these terms of
F
use.”
Available on the Australian High Court website at: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/
recent-av-recordings
5
Photography and Recording available on the Australian High Court website at:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/photography-and-recording
6
In-Court Media Coverage – a consultation paper available on the website of the G
New Zealand Judiciary at: https://courtsofnz.govt.nz/In-Court-Media-Review/In-Court-
Media-Review/In-Court-Media-Coverage_-_consultation-paper_.pdf
7
Report to Chief Justice on In-Court Media Coverage available on the website of
the New Zealand Judiciary at: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/In-Court-Media-
Review/In-Court-Media-Review/ReporttoChiefJusticeonincourtmediacoverageF6
_7_15_20150720.pdf
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A i. In the Federal Court of Australia (having appellate
jurisdiction), television camera coverage is coordinated and
supervised by the Court’s Director of Public Information.
ii. The Court itself has not imposed any rigid conditions on
recordings. Most recordings are permitted on an ad-hoc
B basis and on certain conditions, including that the
proceedings are not disturbed, that no artificial lighting is
used, that cameras remain in fixed positions once
proceedings have commenced, and that the Court retains
the right to veto the use of any part or of all footage
recorded.
C iii. The website of the Federal Court also contains a video
archive of certain judgment summaries, accompanied by
text versions8.
iv. Rule 6.11 of the Federal Court Rules, 20119 seems to indicate
that private parties may also take recordings of proceedings,
D subject to restrictions laid down therein.
8
Available on the website of the Federal Court at: http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-
law-library/videos
9
“6.11 Use of communication device or recording device in place where hearing
taking place
(1) In this rule:
E communication device includes a mobile telephone, audio link, video link or any other
electronic communication equipment.
recording device means a device that is capable of being used to record images or
sound, including a camera, tape recorder, video recorder, mobile telephone or digital
audio recorder.
(2) A person must comply with any directions made by the Court at the hearing of any
proceeding in the Court relating to the use of a communication device or recording
F device.
(3) A person must not use a recording device for the purpose of recording or making a
transcript of the evidence or submissions in a hearing in the Court.
(4) A person must not use a communication device or a recording device that might:
(a) disturb a hearing in the Court; or
(b) cause any concern to a witness or other participant in the hearing; or
(c) allow a person who is not present in the Court to receive information about the
G proceeding or the hearing to which the person is not entitled.
Note 1 The Court may have regard to any relevant matter, including the following:
(a) why the person needs to use the device in the hearing;
(b) if an order has been given excluding one or more witnesses from the Court —
whether there is a risk that the device could be used to brief a witness out of court;
(c) whether the use of the device would disturb the hearing or distract or cause
H concern to a witness or other participant in the hearing.
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 77
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

b. Supreme Courts: Permission for broadcast varies, depending A
on the court.
i. The Supreme Courts (having trial jurisdiction) for the various
Australian districts differ on permission for media
broadcasting. For example, the Queensland Supreme Court
allows for a live or delayed broadcast of only ‘judgment B
remarks’10 and has also issued practice directions in that
regard11.
ii. Filming court proceedings is permitted in certain situations
in certain Supreme Courts like New South Wales12, Northern
Territory13, Western Australia14 and Tasmania15, after an C
application is made to the presiding Judge or to the registrar
in some courts.

Note 2 The Court may dispense with compliance with this rule — see rule 1.34.
available on the website of the Australian Government at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/
Details/F2011L01551 D
10
For definitions and explanations, see Protocol for the Recording and Broadcasting
of Judgment Remarks available on the website of the Supreme Court of Queensland
at:
https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/485224/protocol-for-
recording-and-broadcasting-judgment-remarks.pdf
11
Amended Practice Direction Number 8 Of 2014 available on the website of the
Courts of Queensland at: E
https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/225553/sc-pd-8of2014.pdf
12
See the following documents available on the website of the New South Wales
Supreme Court:
Recording and broadcasting of judgment remarks policy at:
http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Forms%20and%20Fees/
Media%20Forms/recording_and_broadcasting_of_judgment_remarks_policy_
1014v2.pdf F
and
Media Guidelines On Reporting Criminal Proceedings at:
http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/ Media%20
Gu idelin es _Rep ort in g%2 0C rimi nal%2 0 Pro ce edi ngs%2 0 in% 20th e
%20NSW%20Supreme%20Court_April%202016.pdf
13
Media Guide available on the website of the Northern Territory Courts website at:
G
http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/ntmc/media/documents/Media_Guide.pdf
14
Transcripts and Videos available on the website of the Supreme Court of Western
Australia at:
https://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/T/transcripts_and_videos_2018.aspx?uid=9348-
5501-0341-3842
15
Media Guidelines available on the website of the Tasmanian Supreme Court at:
https://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/414221/Media- H
Guidelines-May-2018.pdf
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A c. Trial Courts: Rarely admit cameras and when they do, allow
recording mostly for ceremonial events or for stock footage.
II. Brazil
1. Supreme Court: Allows live video and audio broadcast of Court
proceedings, including the deliberations and voting process undertaken
B by the judges in court.
a. The Brazilian congress enacted a law, which was sanctioned
by the President on 17th May, 2002, enabling the creation of a
public television channel, TV Justiça, dedicated to the judiciary.
b. From 14th August, 2002 onwards, Supreme Court proceedings
C have been telecast live on TV Justica16. A separate radio
channel, Radio Justica17 broadcasts audio proceedings.
c. Both the television and radio stations are owned by the Brazilian
judicial branch and operated by the Supreme Court.
d. There are also two YouTube channels, one titled ‘Tv Justica’18
D which shows discussions and commentaries on the judicial
system and the other titled ‘STF’19, which broadcasts live
proceedings of hearings before the Supreme Court.
2. Lower Courts:
a. Superior Court of Justice: This Court is the highest appellate
E court in Brazil for non-constitutional questions of federal law.
Proceedings are broadcast on the TV Justica channel;
b. Trial Courts: Do not show broadcast of proceedings.
III. Canada
1. Supreme Court20: Allows broadcast and live streaming of its
F proceedings.
a. The Canadian Supreme Court has permitted media coverage
of its proceedings since 1994, on public broadcast service
provided by the Cable Parliamentary Affairs Channel
(CPAC)21. A formal agreement between the Court and the
CPAC governs this media coverage.
G
16
TV Justica official website at: http://www.tvjustica.jus.br
17
Radio Justica official website at: www.radiojustica.jus.br/
18
Official Youtube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/user/TVJustica
19
Official Youtube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/user/STF
20
See In-Court Media Coverage – a consultation paper at footnote 6
21
H Official website at: http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/supreme-court-hearings/
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 79
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

b. The Supreme Court retains copyright over the broadcast A
material, and has ultimate say in use of the coverage. Only the
Court’s own sound facilities can be used for recording, and
permanently installed cameras within the courtroom are used
for visual coverage. The agreement between the Supreme
Court and CPAC also requires broadcast of proceedings to be
B
accompanied by explanations of each case and the overall
processes and powers of the Court.
c. The Supreme Court has also started broadcasting/webcasting
live video streams of court hearings on its website since 200922
and has an archive of its previous broadcasts23.
C
2. Lower Courts
a. Federal Courts: Permit media coverage by broadcasters
The Federal Court of Appeal allows audio-video media
coverage of proceedings as per published guidelines24. The
D
22
Available on the website of the Supreme Court of Canada at: https://www.scc-csc.ca/
case-dossier/info/hear-aud-eng.aspx
23
Available on the website of the Supreme Court of Canada at: https://www.scc-csc.ca/
case-dossier/info/webcasts-webdiffusions-eng.aspx
24
“Media coverage of proceedings with audio-visual equipment is only permitted in
E
accordance with the following guidelines:
a. A media request to cover a specific proceeding must be made sufficiently in
advance to allow for necessary permissions to be obtained.
b. A decision as to whether to allow media coverage will be made by the Chief
Justice, after consultation with the panel of judges hearing the particular case,
as well as with the parties.
c. The Chief Justice or panel of judges hearing the proceeding may limit or F
terminate media coverage to protect the rights of the parties; to assure the
orderly conduct of the proceedings; or for any other reason considered
necessary or appropriate in the interest of the administration of justice.
d. Nothing in these guidelines shall prevent the Chief Justice from placing
additional restrictions, or prohibiting altogether, media access to the Court’s
facilities.
e. Only equipment which does not produce distracting sound or light shall be G
employed to cover proceedings.
f. The Chief Justice or his designate may limit or circumscribe the placement or
movement of the media personnel and their equipment.”
Guidelines on Public and Media available on the website of the Federal Court of
Appeal of Canada at: http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf_eng/media_eng.html

H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A Federal Court also has its own set of guidelines regulating
coverage of proceedings25.

A written application has to be made for permission to record
proceedings but the general policy is to allow such applications
if they are made within a reasonable time.
B
25
“Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Court Proceedings
1. General
a. With reasonable advance notice in writing to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court,
the media may make an application for electronic media coverage of judicial review
proceedings.
C b. The Chief Justice will consult with the judge hearing the proceeding and counsel for
the parties.
c. The Chief Justice or the presiding judge may at any time impose conditions on, or
terminate, media coverage to protect the rights of the parties; to preserve the dignity of
the Court; to assure the orderly conduct of the proceedings; or for any other reason
considered necessary or appropriate in the best interest of justice.
d. No direct public expense is to be incurred for equipment, wiring or personnel needed
D to provide media coverage.
e. There shall be no audio pickup or broadcast of conferences which occur in a court
facility between counsel and their clients, between co-counsel of a client, or between
counsel and the Court held at the bench.
2. Equipment and Personnel
a. Unless otherwise permitted, electronic media coverage is to be limited to:
i. two portable television cameras, each operated by one camera person;
E ii. one still photographer;
iii. one audio system using existing court audio systems or unobtrusive microphones
and wiring.
b. If two or more media representatives apply to cover a proceeding, their representatives
are expected to agree upon a pooling arrangement, including designation of pool
operators, procedures for cost sharing, access to and dissemination of material, and a
F pool representative.
c. The media must show that they will use only equipment that does not produce distracting
sound or light, or use flash attachments, other artificial light sources, signal lights or
devices indicating that it is activated.
d. The presiding judge may specify the location of equipment in the courtroom and
require modification of light sources at media expense.
e. Media personnel are expected to place, replace, move or remove equipment, or
G change film, film magazines or lenses before court proceedings, after adjournment or
during recesses.
3. Use of Materials
Within 10 days of publication or broadcast of any material generated through electronic
media coverage, media are to provide the Court with a copy.”
Policy on Public and Media Access available on the website of the Federal Court of
Canada at: http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc_cf_en/MediaPolicy.html
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 81
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

b. Courts of Appeal26: Courts of Appeal in the provinces allow or A
deny permission to broadcast court proceedings based on their
own guidelines27.
c. Courts of first instance/Trial Courts: Broadcast of proceedings
is rare. Although each province maintains its own guidelines
for coverage, in practice, approval for broadcast of proceedings B
is rarely given.
IV. China:
Live streaming and recorded broadcasts of court proceedings are
being implemented across the judiciary, from the trial courts right up till
the Supreme People’s Court of China. C

1. Supreme People’s Court:
a. The Supreme Court has allowed proceedings of its public
hearings to be broadcast live28 from July 2016 onwards. These
broadcasts are governed by the 2010 regulations issued by the D
Supreme Court, ‘Provisions on the Live Broadcasting and
Rebroadcasting of Court Trials by the People’s Courts’29. These
regulations focus on the type of cases to broadcast.30

26
See In-Court Media Coverage – a consultation paper at footnote 6
27
For example, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has its own guidelines while the E
Ontario Court of Appeal introduced a pilot for broadcast of court proceedings but
permanent implementation of such scheme was hampered by express prohibitions on
broadcast of proceedings laid down in Section 136 of the Ontario Court of Justice Act,
1990.
28
Official website for streaming at: http://tingshen.court.gov.cn/court/0
29
Available at:
http://www.law-lib.com/law/law_view.asp?id=324868
F
30
Article 2: The people’s court may choose the openly tried cases of higher public
attention, greater social impact, and of legal publicity and education significance to
make live broadcasts of and rebroadcast court trials. The live broadcasting and
rebroadcasting of court trials are prohibited for the following cases:
(1) Cases that are not openly tried in accordance with the law since any national secret,
trade secret, individual privacy, or juvenile delinquency, among others, is involved; G
(2) Criminal cases on which procuratorial organs clearly require the non-live
broadcasting and rebroadcasting of court trials for justifiable reasons;
(3) Civil and administrative cases on which the parties clearly require the non-live
broadcasting and rebroadcasting of court trials for justifiable reasons; and
(4) Other cases of which the live broadcasting and rebroadcasting are inappropriate.
[Translated version]
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A b. Additionally, cases involving matters like review of death
sentences and review of decisions on foreign arbitral awards
are not broadcast. Politically sensitive cases are broadcast at
the discretion of the Court.
c. The 2010 Regulations have been supplemented by The People’s
B Court Courtroom Rules, 201631. These new rules indicate that
court proceedings can only be broadcast by the official Court
machinery and that other parties are restrained from recording
court proceedings in any manner32.
d.These regulations are rules are silent on taking consent from
C parties involved the matter.
2. Lower Courts:
a. Proceedings of several courts, including High Courts and family
courts, have been made available on a centralised, official
website, the Chinese Open Trial Network33 from September
D
2016 onwards, in consonance with the aforementioned People’s
Court Courtroom Rules, 2016. Majority of the cases being
broadcast are civil in nature, with some criminal and
administrative matters also being made available.
31
English copy available at: https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/courtrules/?lang=en
E Also see the official website for Chinese courts:
http://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-19372.html
32
Article 11: In any of the following situations, for trial activities that are conducted
openly in accordance with law, the people’s courts may use television, the internet or
other public media to broadcast or record images, audio or videos:
(1) a high degree of public concern;
(2) a larger social influence;
F (3) the value for legal publicity and education is quite strong.
***
Article 17: During court proceedings, all personnel shall follow the instructions of the
chief judge, or a judge hearing the case alone, respect judicial etiquette, abide by
courtroom discipline, and shall not conduct the following actions:
(1)***
G (2) ***
(3) ***
(4) Taping, videotaping, or taking pictures of trial activities or using mobile
communication tools to propagate trial activities;
(5) ***
[Translated version]
33
Available at: http://tingshen.court.gov.cn
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 83
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

b. Proceedings of around 3500 lower courts have been made A
available on the website, with many videos available in High
Definition (HD) format. In 2017 alone, more than 1.27 million
trials had been broadcast on the website.
c. Some High Courts also make their proceedings available on
their own websites34. B
V. England:
1. Supreme Court: The media is permitted to broadcast court
proceedings and hearings are live streamed and recorded.
a. Till 2005, recording of court proceedings was a crime 35 and
also amounted to contempt of court36. C
34
For example, see the Zhejiang High Court’s website at:
http://www.zjsfgkw.cn/CourtHearing/Video and http://zj.sifayun.com/?courtId=5168;
35
Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925 (as originally enacted):
“41. Prohibition on taking photographs, &c, in court
(1)No person shall—
(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication
make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a
D
judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the
court, whether civil or criminal; or
(b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the
foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;
and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction,
he liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds. E
(2)For the purposes of this section—
(a)the expression “ court” means any court of justice, including the court of a coroner :
(b)the expression “judge” includes recorder, registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner :
(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or
sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court-room or in the building
or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph,
portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court- F
room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.”
Available on the website of the UK Legislature at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/86/section/41
36
Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1981 (as originally enacted):
“9. Use of tape recorders
(1)Subject to subsection (4) below, it is a contempt of court—
(a)to use in court, or bring into court for use, any tape recorder or other instrument for G
recording sound, except with the leave of the court;
(b)to publish a recording of legal proceedings made by means of any such instrument,
or any recording derived directly or indirectly from it, by playing it in the hearing of the
public or any section of the public, or to dispose of it or any recording so derived, with
a view to such publication ;
(c)to use any such recording in contravention of any conditions of leave granted under
paragraph (a). H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A b. With the implementation of the Constitutional Reforms Act,
200537, the Supreme Court was exempted from the prohibition
imposed under the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. The Crime and
Courts Act, 201338 also exempted recording of Supreme Court
proceedings from the ambit of the Contempt of Court Act.
B c. Since its inception, the Supreme Court has given broadcasters
access to footage of its hearings. These hearings are governed
by protocols with such broadcasters. The Supreme Court has
also issued a practice note which broadly sets out the scope
and structure of such broadcasts39.
(2)Leave under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) may be granted or refused at the
C discretion of the court, and if granted may be granted subject to such conditions as the
court thinks proper with respect to the use of any recording made pursuant to the leave;
and where leave has been granted the court may at the like discretion withdraw or
amend it either generally or in relation to any particular part of the proceedings.
(3)Without prejudice to any other power to deal with an act of contempt under paragraph
(a) of subsection (1), the court may order the instrument, or any recording made with it,
or both, to be forfeited; and any object so forfeited shall (unless the court otherwise
D determines on application by a person appearing to be the owner) be sold or otherwise
disposed of in such manner as the court may direct.
(4)This section does not apply to the making or use of sound recordings for purposes of
official transcripts of proceedings”
Available on the website of the UK Legislature at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49
37
E “47. Photography etc
(1)In section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (c. 86) (prohibition on taking
photographs etc in court), for subsection (2)(a) substitute—
“(a)the expression “court” means any court of justice (including the court of a coroner),
apart from the Supreme Court;”.
***”
Available on the website of the UK Legislature at:
F https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/47
38
Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Act, available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/contents/enacted
39
Practice Note 8.17.1:
“Broadcasting
8.17.1. The President and the Justices of the Supreme Court have given permission for
video footage of proceedings before the Court to be broadcast where this does not affect
G the administration of justice and the recording and broadcasting is conducted in
accordance with the protocol which has been agreed with representatives of several UK
broadcasters. Permission to broadcast proceedings must be sought from the President
or the presiding Justice on each occasion and requires his or her express approval.
Where the President or the presiding Justice grants permission, he or she may impose
such conditions as he or she considers to be appropriate including the obtaining of
consent from all the parties involved in the proceedings.”
H Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/practice-direction-08.pdf
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 85
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

d. The Supreme Court allows for hearings to be live streamed on A
its own website40 with a delay of around one minute and also
has a Youtube channel which shows selected broadcasts from
the live stream41. Broadcast of proceedings is subject to the
discretion of the Law Lords, who reserve the right to withdraw
coverage for sensitive appeals.
B
2. Lower Courts: The Crime and Courts Act, 2013 amended the
existing laws to facilitate broadcasting in courts and tribunals by providing
exceptions to the Criminal Justice Act, 192542 and prescribing conditions
subject to which recordings could be made. Broadcast of court
proceedings is allowed in a limited number of courts across the country.
C
a. Court of Appeal for England and Wales43: The Court broadcasts
its proceedings live with a 70-second broadcast delay system
i. The broadcast system is operated by a specialist video
journalist who takes orders from the court.
ii. The broadcast is conducted by cameras, some of which are D
operated completely wirelessly, and can be moved from
40
See official website at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/
41
Official Youtube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt
42
Amended Section 41 of Criminal Justice Act, 1925:
“41. Prohibition on taking photographs, etc., in court.
(1)No person shall— E
(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication
make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a
judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the
court, whether civil or criminal; or
(b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the
foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;
and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, F
be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
[F1(1A)See section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 for power to provide for
exceptions.]
(2)For the purposes of this section—
[F2(a)the expression “court” means any court of justice (including the court of a
coroner), apart from the Supreme Court;]
G
(b)the expression “Judge” includes . . . F3, registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner:
(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or
sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building
or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph,
portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–
room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.”
43
See: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/oct/30/court-of-appeal-proceedings- H
televised
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A court to court. Subject to the judges’ approval, the video
journalist can take his cameras into any of the courtrooms
in which the Court of Appeal may sit.
iii. Lawyers’ arguments and judges’ comments appear in the
broadcast but defendants, witnesses and victims are not
B shown.
iv. Footage can be used for news and current affairs but not in
other contexts such as comedy, entertainment or advertising.
b. Crown Court: The Crown Court (Recording) Order, 201644
partially lifts the prohibition on recording proceedings in order
C to facilitate a pilot project of recording sentencing remarks in
the Crown Courts. Since then, several Crown Courts have
trialled broadcast of proceedings.
VI. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
1. The ECHR allows for broadcast of court proceedings, as a
corollary of its court rules, which set out that all hearings are
D
public45.
2. All the Court’s public hearings are broadcast on the Court’s
website46. Hearings held in the morning can be viewed in the
afternoon while those held in the afternoon are available during
the evening.
E
3. All the Court’s public hearings since 2007 have been filmed
and can be viewed, with interpretations available in French
and English.
44
Available on the website of the UK Legislature at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/612/pdfs/uksi_20160612_en.pdf
45
F “Rule 63 – Public character of hearings
1. Hearings shall be public unless, in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Rule, the
Chamber in exceptional circumstances decides otherwise, either of its own motion or at
the request of a party or any other person concerned.
2. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a hearing in the interests
of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests
of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent
G strictly necessary in the opinion of the Chamber in special circumstances where publicity
would prejudice the interests of justice.
3. Any request for a hearing to be held in camera made under paragraph 1 of this Rule
must include reasons and specify whether it concerns all or only part of the hearing.”
Available on the official website of the ECHR at:
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf
46
Available on the official website of the ECHR at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/
H home.aspx?p=hearings&c
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 87
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

VII. Germany: A
Germany has passed legislation which allows for live broadcasting
of court proceedings in the Federal and Supreme Courts, although actual
instances of such broadcasts are rare owing to the strict restrictions
imposed by the said legislation.
1. Federal Constitutional Court and Supreme Courts B

a. Section 169 of The Court Constitution Act forbade radio and
television broadcasts of trials, and sound and film recordings
made for the purposes of public presentation47.
b. In October 2017, the German parliament passed the ‘Act to C
Increase Media Access in Court Proceedings and to Improve
Communication Aid for People with Speech or Hearing
Impairments’48. The amendment act provides for the possibility
of broadcasting and recording the pronouncements of the
judgments and the sentencing of the Federal Constitutional Court
of Justice and the five Supreme Federal Courts. Such broadcast D
is permissible if the proceedings are deemed to be of historical
significance for Germany but can be prohibited to protect the
legitimate interests of parties to the proceedings or even of
third parties.
c. The recordings will not be made public but will be handed over E
to the German Federal Archives or a State Archive where
they can be accessed subject to certain conditions.
47
“Section 169
The hearing before the adjudicating court, including the pronouncement of judgments
and rulings, shall be public. Audio and television or radio recordings as well as audio F
and film recordings intended for public presentation or for publication of their content
shall be inadmissible.”
English version of The Court Constitution Act available at:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gvg/englisch_gvg.html

48
English translation; In German, Gesetz zur Erweiterung der Medienöffentlichkeit
in Gerichtsverfahren und zur Verbesserung der Kommunikationshilfen für Menschen G
mit Sprach- und Hörbehinderungen (Gesetz über die Erweiterung der
Medienöffentlichkeit in Gerichtsverfahren- EMöGG), available on the website of the
German Judiciary at:
ht tps: //www. b mj v.d e /Sh aredD ocs/ Gese tz gebungsv erf ahre n /D okume nte /
BGBl _ EM %C3 % B6 GG.p d f; jses sio n id= B96F 37 ED7F 016 362 7DB 7 B0BF
3343C555.2_cid297?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A d. Broadcasts of proceedings will happen in separate media rooms.
The decision to provide broadcasting in the media room or to
even to permit broadcasting or recording at all, is the judge’s
discretion and cannot be appealed.
e. Since there are restrictions imposed by the law regarding
B broadcast of proceedings and owing to the strict privacy
protection granted to parties to proceedings, combined with
the narrow scope of what constitutes a case of ‘historical
significance’, actual broadcasts of court cases in Germany
rarely occur.
2. Lower Courts: The amendment act only mentions the possibility
C of broadcasting proceedings of the Federal Constitutional Court and
Supreme Federal Courts and makes no mention about broadcast of
proceedings in lower courts.
VIII. International Criminal Court (ICC)
1. The ICC allows for live streaming of its proceedings with a 30-
D minute delay to allow for any necessary redactions of confidential
information49.
2. The ICC has an official Youtube channel where it publishes
programmes concerning cases, proceedings, informative sessions, press
conferences, outreach activities and other events at the Court 50. The
E channel allows viewers to follow various cases before the ICC, in several
languages, through the weekly postings of summaries of proceedings.
IX. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY)
1. Court proceedings are available for viewing on the website of
F the ICTY51.
2. ICTY also has a Youtube channel where selected clips of guilty
pleas, witness testimonies and short documentaries are made available.
Additionally, the ICTY has social media accounts in order to ‘bring the
activities of the court closer to the public’52.
G 49
Official website for streaming at: https://www.icc-cpi.int
Also see ‘Understanding the International Criminal Court’ available on the official
ICC website at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/pids/publications/uicceng.pdf
50
Official Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/IntlCriminalCourt/featured
51
Available on the official website: http://icr.icty.org
52
Official press release by the ICTY available at: http://www.icty.org/en/press/tribunal-
H social-media-channels-go-live
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 89
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

3. The United Nations International Residual Mechanism for A
Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), a court created to perform a number of
remaining functions previously carried out by the ICTY, amongst others,
also contains video recordings of ICTY proceedings on its website53 and
official Youtube channel54.
X. Ireland (Northern): B
1. Supreme Court: The United Kingdom Supreme Court has
jurisdiction over Northern Ireland and accordingly, hearings of cases
which arise in respect of Northern Ireland are live streamed.
a. Just as in England, media coverage of courts in Northern Ireland
was prohibited by the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act, C
194555, which was similar to the original Criminal Justice Act,
1925, and which applied identical restrictions to photography
or sketching in the courts of Northern Ireland. Section 9 of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1981 also extended to Northern Ireland.
D
53
Official website: http://www.irmct.org/en/cases#all-cases
54
Official Youtube channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/
UCNPOPvnINPwtfjwEnYtIvYw
55
“29 Prohibition on taking photographs, etc., in court.
(1)No person shall—
(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication
make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch of any person, being a judge
E
of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court,
whether civil or criminal; or
(b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the
foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction of such photograph, portrait
or sketch;
and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, F
be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding [F1 level 3 on the standard
scale].
(2)For the purposes of this section—
[F2(a)the expression “court” means any court of justice (including the court of a
coroner), apart from the Supreme Court;]
(b)the expression “judge” includes recorder, registrar, resident magistrate, justice of
the peace sitting out of petty sessions and coroner; G
(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or
sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court-room or in the building
or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph,
portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court-
room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.”

H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A b. With the implementation of the Constitutional Reforms Act,
2005, the United Kingdom Supreme Court was exempted from
the prohibition imposed under the Criminal Justice (Northern
Ireland) Act. The Crime and Courts Act, 2013 exempted
recording of Supreme Court proceedings from the ambit of
the Contempt of Court Act56.
B
c. The UK Supreme Court has also sat in Northern Ireland and
proceedings of the same have been live streamed on the website
of the Court. During the session, the Supreme Court allowed
proceedings to be broadcast live in a separate ‘overflow
courtroom’ within the Court premises.57
C
2. Lower Courts: Although the government has indicated its
intention and willingness to allow court proceedings to be recorded58,
actual broadcast of lower court proceedings remains restricted.
XI. Ireland (Republic):
D Although there are no statutory provisions which prohibit
photography or sound, television or video recordings in courts, broadcast
of court proceedings, whether photography or audio-video recording,
without permission, is restricted as a practice 59.
1. Supreme Court: Has allowed cameras into the Court on rare
E instances.
The first broadcast of Court proceedings was in October 2017,
when the delivery of two judgments of the Supreme Court was broadcast
live on the state broadcaster, RTE, using small robotic cameras inside
the court room60.
F
2. Lower courts: Do not appear to allow broadcasting of
proceedings, as on date.
56
See position in England at Point V
57
A list of provisions made for broadcast of its hearings in Ireland is available on the
official website of the Supreme Court at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/access-
to-supreme-court-hearings-in-belfast.html
G 58
Research and Information Service Briefing Paper on Broadcasting in Courts,
available on the website of the northern Ireland Assembly at:
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2012/justice/
3812.pdf
59
See Report on Contempt of Court by the Law Reform Commission of Ireland,
Chapter 4.43, available at: http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/
rContempt.htm
H 60
See: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41732226
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 91
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

XII. Israel61 A
1. Supreme Court: Has approved of live-broadcasting court
proceedings.
a. The Israeli Courts Act, 5744-1984 62 imposes criminal
punishment for taking and publishing pictures in a court room
unless the court grants permission. The media however can B
report on events occurring in most Israeli courts, subject to the
limitations imposed by the audio-visual coverage mentioned in
the Act.
b. Earlier, a legal presumption existed against audio-visual coverage
of courts in Israel. In September 2014, a limited pilot was C
launched to allow live coverage of court hearings at the
Supreme Court although there was no formal administrative
legislation or regulation issued in that regard.
c. Thereafter, in November 2014, the Chief Justice of Israel
approved of live broadcasting of Court proceedings63. D
2. Lower Courts: Do not generally allow for broadcast of
proceedings but exceptions have been made in cases of historical
significance.
a. Reporting on court proceedings by media is allowed but
E
broadcast of such proceedings is not. Certain courts allow the
media to photograph the judges entering the courtrooms, but
request the media to stop recording before hearings begin.
b. Permission has also been given to cover events in honour of
retiring judges as also for hearings of quasi-judicial committees.
F
c. Permission to record and broadcast trial court hearings has
been granted on five occasions in Israel’s history. Two cases
involved trials of Nazi personnel and were allowed because
the trials were deemed to be of historical significance. One
61
See Audio-Visual Coverage Of Court Proceedings In A World Of Shifting G
Technology by Itay Ravid available at:
http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/35.1-Ravid.pdf
62
Title 70(b) of Act, ‘Prohibited Publications’; Israeli Courts Act available in Hebrew
at: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=15289
63
See: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4592208,00.html

H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A case involved a defamation lawsuit filed against an Israeli
newspaper, another was the trial of a man charged with the
assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister and the final instance
was in 1999 when the Jerusalem District Court allowed the
broadcast of the decision given in the criminal case of a former
Israeli Minister.
B
XIII. New Zealand:
1. Supreme Court: Allows for broadcast of its proceedings.
a. Media guidelines have been issued for regulating broadcast of
Supreme Court proceedings64 which supplement the ‘In-Court
C Media Coverage Guidelines’ applicable to the various other
courts of New Zealand.
2. Lower Courts: Broadcasting of proceedings is allowed in the
lower courts, with several guidelines issued in that regard.

D a. Judges have a broad discretion as to the procedures in
courtrooms over which they preside, subject to certain specific
64
“10.5 Appendix E: Supreme Court media guidelines
1. Subject to paragraph (5), all applications to televise or otherwise record proceedings
of the Supreme Court will be deemed to be approved unless a party indicates, within
three days of being advised by the registrar of the application, that the party objects to
it.
E
2. Any such objection must be communicated to the registrar in written form and must
include the grounds upon which the objection is made.
3. The registrar must immediately communicate the objection to the news media applicant
and to all other parties to the proceedings. They must make any submissions they wish
to make in relation to the objection in writing within three days of receiving it. The court
or a judge will then determine the application.
F 4. An application under paragraph 1 must be made in sufficient time before the hearing
of the proceedings to which it relates to enable the steps referred to in paragraphs 1 and
3 to be taken. The registrar may waive this requirement for good cause and may
abridge any of the times referred to accordingly.
5. If an application under paragraph 1 is made in circumstances in which the registrar
considers there is insufficient time to comply with paragraphs 1 and 3, or to enable the
court properly to consider the application, the registrar must refer the matter to a judge
G who may decline the application or give such directions concerning the application as
he or she thinks fit.
6. The physical arrangements for any televising or recording of proceedings shall be
determined by the registrar after such consultation with the applicant and otherwise as
the registrar considers appropriate.”
Available on the official website of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice at: https://
www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/media-centre/media-information/media-
H guide/appendices/appendix-e/
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 93
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

provisions such as the various rules of court, and statutory A
requirements.
b. Broadcast of court proceedings is allowed before the Court of
Appeal, High Court, Employment Court, District Court and any
other Tribunal which chooses to adopt the same, subject to the
discretion of the presiding judge. These broadcasts are guided B
by the In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines, 201665.
c. Members of the media make an application to the Registrar of
the concerned court atleast 10 days in advance, setting out
which aspect of the court process they wish to film. A copy of
the application is sent to the other parties, and after submissions C
have been received, the judge determines whether to approve
or decline the application. Whether to grant permission is a
matter of discretion for the judge, and the judge also has the
power to remove media at his/her discretion.
d. These guidelines do not have legislative force nor do they create D
any rights in that regard and merely ensure that applications
for media coverage are dealt with expeditiously and fairly.
e. They also set out that recordings must not be broadcast until at
least 10 minutes have elapsed, although there are certain
exceptions made for this rule as well. E
f. In addition, there is a separate protocol for application of the
said guidelines to the District Court summary jurisdiction66.
There are also separate Environment Court Media Coverage
Guidelines67.
XIV. Scotland: F
1. Supreme Court: The United Kingdom Supreme Court has
jurisdiction over Scotland and accordingly, hearings of the Court are live
streamed on the Court’s website.
65
Available on the official website of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice at: https:/
/www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/media-centre/media-information/media- G
guide/appendices/appendix-c/
66
Available on the official website of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice at:
https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/media-centre/media-information/
media-guide/appendices/appendix-d/
67
Available on the official website of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice at:
https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/media-centre/media-information/
media-guide/appendices/appendix-f/ H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A 2. Lower Courts: Broadcast of court proceedings is permissible
by law and both civil and criminal cases have been broadcast over the
years.
a. There was no statutory ban on broadcasting of court proceedings
in Scotland, since the Criminal Justice Act is not applicable to
B Scotland. However until 1992, the courts adopted a strict
position banning electronic media from access to courts.
b. In 1992, the “Television in Courts” directions were issued68
(later quoted in the X v British Broadcasting Corporation
and Lion Television Limited judgment69) which provided that
C filming could be permitted on the basis of “whether the presence
of television cameras in the court would be without risk to the
administration of justice.” These directions provided that the
televising of proceedings was not permitted in criminal cases
at first instance and that filming could only be done with consent
of all parties involved in the proceedings and subject to approval
D by the presiding judge of the final product before it was
televised. The conditions for such filming were varied for a
trial period in 201270.
c. As long as all key parties agree and conditions are met, full
trials can, atleast in theory, be filmed for educational purposes
E and the juries’ verdict or sentencing can be filmed for other
purposes such as news broadcast. Both civil and criminal trials
can be broadcast.
d. Cases of special public interest, like the trial of accused in the
Lockerbie Bombings, have also been allowed to be broadcast,
F with guidelines for the same issued by the presiding judge in
the matter.71
68
See Appendix III to the Cameras and live text-based communication in the
Scottish courts: a consultation issued by the Judicial Office for Scotland available on
the official website of the Scottish judiciary at:
G http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/Upload/Documents/ConsultationDocument.pdf
69
[2005] CSOH 80
70
See Appendix IV to the Cameras and live text-based communication in the
Scottish courts: a consultation link at footnote 68
71
See Para 5.5 onwards of the Cameras and live text-based communication in the
Scottish courts: a consultation link referred to at footnote 68
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 95
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

e. Scotland is currently in the process of reforming its court- A
broadcasting process as per the suggestions of a Review
Committee72.
XV. South Africa:
1. Supreme Court of Appeal: The Supreme Court has allowed for
the media to broadcast court proceedings in criminal matters, as an B
extension of the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of
expression.
a. In its landmark judgment of The NDPP v Media 24 Limited
& others and HC Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others73,
the Supreme Court allowed for broadcast of proceedings in C
criminal trials, holding that courts should not restrict the nature
and scope of broadcast of court proceedings unless prejudice
was demonstrable and there was a risk that such prejudice
would occur.
b. While refraining from laying down rigid rules on broadcast of D
such court proceedings, the Court set out general guidelines to
assist in determining whether proceedings should be broadcast:
i. The trial court would exercise its discretion to allow broadcast
of proceedings on a case-to-case basis, after balancing the
degree of risk involved in allowing the cameras into the E
court room against the degree of risk that a fair trial might
not ensue;
ii. The trial court could always direct that some or all of the
proceedings before it could not be broadcast or could only
be broadcast in certain forms, like audio recording; F
iii. A judge could terminate coverage at any time upon a finding
that the rules imposed by the judge had been violated or the
substantial rights of individual participants or the rights to a
fair trial would be prejudiced by such coverage if it was
allowed to continue; G
72
See: Report of the Review of Policy on Recording and Broadcasting of
Proceedings in Court, and Use of Live Text-Based Communications available on
the official website of the Scottish judiciary at: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/
25/1369/Report-of-the-Review-of-Policy-on-Recording-and-Broadcasting-of-
Proceedings-in-Court—and-Use-of-Live-Text-Based-Communications
73
[2017] ZASCA 97 (21 st June 2017)
H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A iv. An accused person in a criminal trial could object to the
presence of cameras in the courtroom. If the court
determined that the objection raised by the accused was
valid, it could exclude cameras from recording;
v. Witnesses could also raise objections to being filmed. If the
judge determined that a witness had a valid objection,
B
alternatives to regular photographic or television coverage
could be explored, like introducing special lighting techniques
and electronic voice alteration, or merely by shielding the
witness from the camera. Broadcast of testimony of an
objecting witness could be delayed until after the trial is
C over;
vi. Cameras would be permitted to film or televise all non-
objecting witnesses.
vii. There would be no coverage of:
• Communications between counsel and client or co-
D counsel;
• Bench discussions;
• In-camera hearings.
2. Lower Courts: In light of the Supreme Court decision in Breda,
lower court criminal proceedings are also allowed to be broadcast subject
E to conditions laid down by the presiding judge.
XVI. United States of America
1. Supreme Court: The Supreme Court does not permit
broadcasting of its proceedings for a variety of reasons74 including that
it could adversely affect the character and quality of the dialogue between
attorneys and Justices75.
F
a. The Supreme Court has, over the years, consistently rejected
pleas to broadcast oral arguments. 76 It does not allow
photography of proceedings or video recordings.
1
See Senate hearings on ‘A Bill To Permit The Televising Of Supreme Court
Proceedings’ on the official website of the US Congress available at:
G https://www.congress.gov/110/crpt/srpt448/CRPT-110srpt448.pdf
2
See Letter by Counselor to the Chief Justice, rejecting live broadcast of oral
arguments, available at:
https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/scotusletter.pdf
1
See: Above Politics: Congress and the Supreme Court in 2017 by Jason Mazzone
at Pg. 404, Footnote 208, 93 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 373 (2018) available at:
ht tp s:/ /s ch o la rsh i p . k ent l aw. ii t.e du/ cg i/v i e wc on te nt .cgi ?a r ti cl e =42 0 7&
H context=cklawreview
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 97
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

b. The Court has, however, allowed audio recording of oral A
arguments since 1955. Presently, the Court releases same-
day audio transcripts of oral arguments77 and audio recordings
of all oral arguments at the end of each week that arguments
are heard78.
2. Federal Appellate Courts: Certain Federal Courts allow for B
broadcast of court proceedings subject to guidelines laid down in that
regard.
a. Filming and broadcast of criminal proceedings in US Federal
Courts were prohibited by Rule 53 of the Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure79 since 1946. C
b. After various pilot runs involving limited number of courts, the
Judicial Conference in 2010 authorised a pilot for three years,
involving 150 first-instance civil courts. Cameras were to be
operated by the court itself, no filming of jurors was to take
place and the consent of parties was required. Proceedings D
could be recorded only with the approval of the presiding judge,
and parties had to consent to the recording of each proceeding
in a case. Unless the presiding judge decided not to make the
recordings publicly available, they would subsequently be posted
on the federal courts website, as well as on local participating
court websites at the court’s discretion. Judges would have a E
switch or be able to direct cessation of recording if deemed
necessary80.
c. The Judicial Conference in 2016 decided not to alter the
guidelines set out in the 2010 conference. Three districts that
participated in the 2010 pilot programme were authorised to F
77
Official website of the Supreme Court at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript
78
Official website of the Supreme Court:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio
79
‘Rule 53. Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting Prohibited
Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the
G
taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting
of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.’
Available on the official website of the House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee
at: https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Criminal2016.pdf
80
See: History of Cameras in Courts on the website of the United States Courts at:
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/cameras-courts/history-cameras-courts H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A continue filming proceedings under the same terms and
conditions as in 2010.
d. Federal Courts of Appeals have the option of providing audio
or video recordings of appellate hearings, and rules are
available on each circuit’s website. The Ninth Circuit Court
B for example, live-streams oral arguments81.
3. Lower Courts/District Courts: Courts in all states have framed
rules for broadcast of court proceedings, each varying in the degree and
extent to which broadcasts are allowed.
a. In Estes v. Texas82, the US Supreme Court held that camera
C coverage of a trial inspite of the defendant’s objection to the
same violated the defendant’s constitutional right, although the
question of whether courtroom broadcasting was inherently
prejudicial to a fair trial, remained open. This question was
answered in Chandler v Florida83 where the Court was of
the opinion that the restriction on camera coverage imposed in
D Estes was not an absolute, universal ban and left it to the states
to frame rules for permitting televised recordings, since
televising a criminal trial did not automatically make the trial
unfair to the defendant.
b. In the aftermath of the decision in Chandler, all 50 US states
E have allowed for some form of televised broadcast of court
proceedings and framed rules for the same 84, with the
applicability and extent of such broadcast varying from state
to state. Some states permit visual and audio coverage in all
types of court proceedings that are public, including civil and
criminal trials of the first instance, at the discretion of the
F presiding judge, while other states allow such coverage only in
appellate courts.
11. We may now advert to the comprehensive guidelines for live
streaming of Court proceedings in Supreme Court, as suggested by the
learned Attorney General for India, which read as follows:
G 81
See the official website for the United States Court for the Ninth Circuit at: https:/
/www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/index_video.php
82
381 U.S. 532 (1965)
83
449 U.S. 560 (1981)
84
A complete list of rules enacted in different courts regulating broadcast of proceedings
is available on the website for the ‘National Center for State Courts’ at: https://
www.ncsc.org/Topics/Media/Media-Relations/State-Links.aspx?cat=Cameras
H %20in%20the%20Courtroom
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 99
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

“Comprehensive Guidelines for Live streaming of Court A
proceedings in Supreme Court
Brief Background
1. That the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition seeks a
declaration for permitting live streaming of Supreme Court case
proceedings of constitutional and national importance having B
an impact on the public at large and a direction to make available
the necessary infrastructure for live streaming and to frame
guidelines for the determination of such cases which are of
constitutional and national importance.
2. That, in this regard, it is submitted that Courts in India are open C
to all members of the public who wish to attend the court
proceedings. However, in practice, many interested persons
are unable to witness the hearings on account of constraints of
time, resources, or the ability to travel long distances to attend
hearing on every single date. This is especially true in the case D
of litigants who have to travel long distances from far off States
such as Kerala and States in the North-East and therefore run
the risk of being excluded from attending court hearings
involving cases filed by them.
3. Furthermore, on miscellaneous days of hearing, the Apex Courts E
is highly congested, with practically no space available in the
Courtrooms and in the public gallery to accommodate litigants,
lawyers and law students and interns.
4. On account of such shortcomings, it may be advantageous to
build an appropriate infrastructure for live-streaming or audio/ F
video recording of court proceedings to enable the court
proceedings to be viewed without the constraints of time or
place. It would be ideal if a separate space is allocated by
building a hall in the Court for lawyers, clients and interns to
watch the live proceedings, so that, the crowds in the Court
will be decongested. This will obviate the need for clients G
coming from far away distances and reduce their inconvenience
in witnessing their case. This may also be one of the relevant
factors for the Court to consider. Such a system would also
enable the lawyers, law students and anyone interested in the
workings of the highest court in the country to supplement
H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A their learning with practical study of cases of national
importance, while ensuring that litigants have a true account
of how decisions were made in their respective case. Such a
system is in aid of the well accepted and respected tradition of
‘Open justice’ i.e. justice should be administered in an open
court.
B
Recommendations:
This Hon’ble court may lay down the following guidelines to
administer live streaming of Court proceedings:
5. At the outset, it is submitted that Live Streaming of Court
C proceedings should be introduced as a pilot project in Court
No.1 and only in Constitution bench references. The success
of this project will determine whether or not live streaming
should be introduced in all courts in the Supreme Court and in
Courts pan India.
D 6. To ensure that all persons including litigants, journalists, interns,
visitors and lawyers are able to view the live streaming of the
proceedings, a media room should be designated in the premises
of the court with necessary infrastructural facilities. This will
also ensure that courts are decongested. Provisions may also
E be made available for the benefit of differently abled persons.
7. Apart from live streaming, the Supreme Court may, in the future,
also provide for transcribing facilities and archive the audio-
visual record of the proceedings to make the webcast accessible
to litigants and other interested persons who are unable to
F witness the hearings on account of constraints of time,
resources, or the ability to travel long distances to attend hearing
on every single date. Such webcasts will also allow students
of law to supplement their academic knowledge and gain
practical insights into cases of national importance.
8. It is pertinent that this Hon’ble Court lay down guidelines to
G
safeguard and limit the broadcasting and recording of its
proceedings to ensure better access to justice. Some of the
recommendations are:
a. The Court must have the power to limit, temporarily suspend
or disallow filming or broadcasting, if in its opinion, such
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 101
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

measures are likely to interfere with the rights of the parties A
to a fair trial or otherwise interfere with the proper
administration of justice.
b. The Court may law down guidelines/criterion to determine
what cases constitute proceedings of constitutional and
national importance to seek permission for broadcasting. B
c. As held famously in the case of Scott vs. Scott, (1913) AC
417, “While the broad principle is that the Courts must
administer justice in public, the chief object of Courts of
justice must be to secure that justice is done”, broadcasting
must not be permitted in the cases involving: C
i. Matrimonial matters,
ii.Matters involving interests of juveniles or the protection and
safety of the private life of the young offenders,
iii. Matters of National security, D
iv. To ensure that victims, witnesses or defendants can depose
truthfully and without any fear. Special protection must be given
to vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. It may provide for face
distortion of the witness if she/he consents to the broadcast
anonymously,
E
v. To protect confidential or sensitive information, including all
matters relating to sexual assault and rape, and
vi. Matters where publicity would be antithetical to the
administration of justice.
vii. Cases which may provoke sentiments and arouse passion and F
provoke enmity among communities.
d. Use of the footage would be restricted for the purpose of
news, current affairs and educational purposes and should
not be used for commercial, promotion, light entertainment,
satirical programs or advertising. G

e. Without prior written authorization of the Supreme Court of
India, live streaming or the webcast of the proceedings from
the Supreme Court should not be reproduced, transmitted,
uploaded, posted, modified, published or republished to the
public. H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A f. Any unauthorized usage of the live streaming and/or
webcasts will be punishable as an offence under the Indian
Copyright Act, 1957 and the Information Technology Act,
2000 and any other provisions of the law in force. The law
of contempt should apply to such proceedings. Prohibitions,
fines and penalties may be provided for.
B
g. The Courts may also lay down rules of coverage to provide
for the manner in which the filming may be done and the
equipment that will be allowed in court.
h. Case management techniques should be introduced to ensure
C that matters are decided in a speedy manner and lawyers
abide by time limits fixed prior to the hearing. A skeleton of
arguments/Written submissions should be prepared and
submitted to the Court by the lawyers prior to their
arguments.
D i. The Court of Appeal in England, in November 2013,
introduced streaming its proceedings on YouTube. The
telecast is deferred by 70 seconds with the Judge having
the power to mute something said in the proceedings if he
feels they are inappropriate for public consumption.

E j. Like the Court of Appeal in England, the Supreme Court
should also lay guidelines for having only two camera angles,
one facing the judge and the other- the lawyer. The camera
should not focus on the papers of the lawyer.”
12. As aforesaid, Courts in India are ordinarily open to all members
F of public, who are interested in witnessing the court proceedings.
However, due to logistical issues and infrastructural restrictions in courts,
they may be denied the opportunity to witness live Court proceedings in
propria persona. To consummate their aspirations, use of technology
to relay or publicize the live court proceedings can be a way forward.
By providing “virtual” access of live court proceedings to one and all, it
G will effectuate the right of access to justice or right to open justice and
public trial, right to know the developments of law and including the right
of justice at the doorstep of the litigants. Open justice, after all, can be
more than just a physical access to the courtroom rather, it is doable
even “virtually” in the form of live streaming of court proceedings and
have the same effect.
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 103
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

13. Publication of court proceedings of the Supreme Court is a A
facet of the status of this Court as a Court of Record by virtue of Article
129 of the Constitution, whose acts and proceedings are enrolled for
perpetual memory and testimony. Further, live streaming of court
proceedings in the prescribed digital format would be an affirmation of
the constitutional rights bestowed upon the public and the litigants in
B
particular. While doing so, regard must be had to the fact that just as the
dignity and majesty of the Court is inviolable, the issues regarding privacy
rights of the litigants or witnesses whose cases are set down for hearing,
as also other exceptional category of cases of which live streaming of
proceedings may not be desirable as it may affect the cause of
administration of justice itself, are matters which need to be identified C
and a proper regulatory framework must be provided in that regard by
formulating rules in exercise of the power under Article 145 of the
Constitution. It must be kept in mind that in case of conflict between
competing Constitutional rights, a sincere effort must be made to
harmonise such conflict in order to give maximum expression to each
D
right while minimizing the encroachment on the other rights. We are
conscious of the fact that in terms of Section 327 of CrPC and Section
153-B of CPC, only court-directed matters can be heard in camera and
the general public can be denied access to or to remain in the court
building used by the Court. Until such direction is issued by the Court,
the hearing of the case is deemed to be an open court to which the E
public generally may have access. The access to the hearing by the
general public, however, would be limited to the size and capacity of the
court room. By virtue of live streaming of court proceedings, it would go
public beyond the four walls of the court room to which, in a given case,
the party or a witness to the proceedings may have genuine reservations
F
and may claim right of privacy and dignity. Such a claim will have to be
examined by the concerned Court and for which reason, a just regulatory
framework must be provided for, including obtaining prior consent of the
parties to the proceedings to be live streamed.
14. We generally agree with the comprehensive guidelines for
live streaming of Court proceedings in the Supreme Court suggested by G
the learned Attorney General for India Shri K.K. Venugopal. The project
of live streaming of the court proceedings of the Supreme Court on the
“internet” and/or on radio and TV through live audio-visual broadcasting/
telecasting universally by an official agency, such as Doordarshan, having
H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A exclusive telecasting rights and/or official website/mobile application of
the Court, must be implemented in a progressive, structured and phased
manner, with certain safeguards to ensure that the purpose of live
streaming of proceedings is achieved holistically and that it does not
interfere with the administration of justice or the dignity and majesty of
the Court hearing the matter and/or impinge upon any rights of the litigants
B
or witnesses. The entire project will have to be executed in phases, with
certain phases containing sub-phases or stages. Needless to observe
that before the commencement of first phase of the project, formal rules
will have to be framed by this Court to incorporate the recommendations
made by the learned Attorney General for India as noted in paragraph
C 11 above, while keeping in mind the basic issues, such as:-
(i) To begin with, only a specified category of cases or cases of
constitutional and national importance being argued for final
hearing before the Constitution Bench be live streamed as a
pilot project. For that, permission of the concerned Court will
D have to be sought in writing, in advance, in conformity with the
prescribed procedure.
(ii) Prior consent of all the parties to the concerned proceedings
must be insisted upon and if there is no unanimity between
them, the concerned Court can take the appropriate decision
E in the matter for live streaming of the court proceedings of
that case, after having due regard to the relevancy of the
objections raised by the concerned party. The discretion
exercised by the Court shall be treated as final. It must be
non-justiciable and non-appealable.

F (iii) The concerned court would retain its power to revoke the
permission at any stage of the proceedings suo motu or on an
application filed by any party to the proceeding or otherwise,
in that regard, if the situation so warrants, keeping in mind that
the cause of administration of justice should not suffer in any
manner.
G
(iv) The discretion of the Court to grant or refuse to grant such
permission will be, inter alia, guided by the following
considerations:
(a) unanimous consent of the parties involved,
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 105
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

(b) even after the parties give unanimous consent the Court A
will consider the sensitivity of the subject matter before
granting such permission, but not limited to case which may
arouse passion or social unrest amongst section of the public,
(c) any other reason considered necessary or appropriate in
the larger interest of administration of justice, including as B
to whether such broadcast will affect the dignity of the court
itself or interfere with/prejudice the rights of the parties to
a fair trial,
(v) There must be a reasonable time-delay (say ten minutes)
between the live court proceedings and the broadcast, in order C
to ensure that any information which ought not to be shown, as
directed by the Court, can be edited from being broadcast.
15. Until a full-fledged module and mechanism for live streaming
of the court proceedings of the Supreme Court over the “internet” is
evolved, it would be open to explore the possibility of implementation of D
Phase-I of live streaming in designated areas within the confines of this
Court via “intranet” by use of allocated passwords, as a pilot project.
The designated areas may include:
(a) dedicated media room which could be accessible to the litigants,
advocates, clerks and interns. Special provisions must be made E
to accommodate differently abled people;
(b) the Supreme Court Bar Association room/lounge;
(c) the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association room/
lounge;
F
(d) the official chambers of the Attorney General, Solicitor General
and Additional Solicitor Generals in the Supreme Court premises;
(e) Advocates’ Chambers blocks.
(f) Press Reporters room.
16. It may be desirable to keep in mind other measures to be G
taken for efficient management of the entire project such as:
(i) Appoint a technical committee comprising the Registrar (IT),
video recording expert(s) and any other members as may be
required, to develop technical guidelines for video recording
H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A and broadcasting court proceedings, including the specific
procedure to be followed and the equipment to be used in that
regard.
(ii) Specialist video operator(s) be appointed to handle the live
broadcast, who will work under the directions of the concerned
B Court. The coverage itself will be coordinated and supervised
by a Court-appointed officer.
(iii) The focus of the cameras in the courtroom will be directed
only towards two sets of people:
a. The Justices/Bench hearing the matter and at such an angle
C so as to only show the anterior-facing side of the Justices,
without revealing anything from behind the elevated
platform/level on which the Justices sit or any of the Justices’
papers, notes, reference material and/or books;
b. The arguing advocate(s) in the matter and at such an angle
D so as to not to reveal in any way the contents of notes or
reference material being relied upon by the arguing
advocate(s). This will also apply to parties-in-person arguing
their own matter.
c. There shall be no broadcast of any interaction between the
E advocate and the client even during arguments.
(iv) Subject to any alteration of camera angles for the purpose of
avoiding broadcast of any of the aforestated papers, notes,
reference materials, books and/or discussions, the camera
angles will remain fixed over the course of the broadcast.
F
(v) This Court shall introduce a case management system to ensure
inter alia that advocates are allotted and adhere to a fixed
time limit while arguing their matter to be live streamed.
(vi) This Court must retain copyright over the broadcasted material
and have the final say in respect of use of the coverage
G material.
(vii) Reproduction, re-broadcasting, transmission, publication, re-
publication, copying, storage and/or modification of any part(s)
of the original broadcast of Court proceedings, in any form,
physical, digital or otherwise, must be prohibited. Any person
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 107

engaging in such act(s) can be proceeded under, but not limited A
to, the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
17. We reiterate that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 will have to
be suitably amended to provide for the regulatory framework as per the B
contours delineated hereinabove. We may hasten to add that it would be
open to frame such regulatory measures as may be found necessary for
holistic live streaming of the court proceedings, without impinging upon
the cause of administration of justice in any manner.
18. In conclusion, we hold that the cause brought before this Court C
by the protagonists in larger public interest, deserves acceptance so as
to uphold the constitutional rights of public and the litigants, in particular.
In recognizing that court proceedings ought to be live streamed, this
Court is mindful of and has strived to balance the various interests
regarding administration of justice, including open justice, dignity and
privacy of the participants to the proceedings and the majesty and D
decorum of the Courts.
19. As a result, we allow these writ petitions and interventionists’
applications with the aforementioned observations and hope that the
relevant rules will be formulated expeditiously and the first phase project
executed in right earnest by all concerned. Ordered accordingly. E

20. While parting, we must place on record our sincere appreciation
for the able assistance and constructive suggestions given by the learned
counsel and the parties in-person appearing in this case.

DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. F
Index to the judgment
A Open Justice
B Indian Jurisprudence
C Technology and Open Court G
C.1 ICT in Indian courts
C.2 Technology and Implementation
C.3 Platforms created for service delivery
H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A C.4 National Judicial Data Grid
C.5 Other facilities created to speed up justice delivery
C.6 Concept of Video Streaming/Web Cast
C.7 Virtual reality as an extension of the open court
B D Comparative Law
E Model guidelines for broadcasting of the proceedings and other
Judicial events of the Supreme Court of India
A Open Justice
C 1. The issue in this batch of cases is whether there should be live
dissemination of proceedings before this Court with the aid of Information
and Communications Technology (ICT). The basis of the petitions is
that this would enable litigants and society to have wide access to judicial
proceedings. It is urged that cases of constitutional and national
importance have a significant impact on the social fabric. Citizens have
D
a right to know about and to follow court proceedings.It has been
submitted that live or online transmission of court proceedings with the
aid of ICT enabled tools will subserve the cause of access to justice.
2. Our legal system subscribes to the principle of open justice.
The prayer for live-streaming of courtroom proceedings has its genesis
E in this principle. Live-streaming will allow real time access to courtroom
proceedings to litigants and to every member of the society.
3. Open justice is a long-established principle of common law
systems. It rests on a high pedestal in a liberal democracy as ‘a sound
and very sacred part of the Constitution of the country and the
F administration of justice…’1
Jeremy Bentham propounded the idea of open justice in the late
eighteenth century while designing principles for establishments in which
persons are to be kept under inspection:

G “...the doors of all public establishments ought to be, thrown wide
open to the body of the curious at large- the great open committee
of the tribunal of the world.”2
1
House of Lords in Scott v Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 at 473.
2
Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence
of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 volumes,
H volume 4, at page 46.
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 109
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

4. Although Bentham wrote these words in the larger context of A
public institutions, they apply on equal terms to the theory of open justice.
Bentham in his “Draught of Code for the Organization of the Judicial
Establishment” codified the principle of open justice as:
“Article XVIII- Judicial proceedings, from the first step to the
last inclusive, shall, in all cases but the secret ones herein specified, B
be carried out with the utmost degree of publicity possible.”3
According to Bentham, secret (or in-camera) proceedings were
to be carried out in the judge’s chamber.4 He also prescribed open justice
for trials by the National Assembly Courts, (which, in his Code, were
courts constituted to hear complaints against any metropolitan judge):
C
“Article III- Such trial shall be conducted from beginning to end,
with open doors and with the utmost possible degree of publicity.”5
The principle underlying open justice was formulated by Lord Chief
Justice Hewart:
“Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and
D
undoubtedly be seen to be done.”6
In R (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Judge CJ draws a link between
open justice and democratic values:
“...the principle of open justice represents an element of democratic
E
accountability, and the vigorous manifestation of the principle of
freedom of expression. Ultimately it supports the rule of law
itself.”7
5. Legal scholars indicate that the principle of open justice
encompasses several aspects that are central to the fair administration
of justice and the rule of law.8 It has both procedural and substantive F
dimensions, which are equally important. Open justice comprises of
several precepts:
(i) The entitlement of an interested person to attend court as a
spectator;
3
Ibid at page 288. G
4
Ibid at page 303.
5
Ibid at page 300.
6
King’s Bench, Division Court in R v Sussex [1923], All ER Rep 233.
7
Court of Appeal, England and Wales in R (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2010] 3 WLR 554.
8
Cunliffe Emma, “Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches”, (2012) 40 Fed L
Rev 385. H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A (ii) The promotion of full, fair and accurate reporting of court
proceedings;
(iii) The duty of judges to give reasoned decisions; and
(iv) Public access to judgments of courts.9
B The principle of an open court is a significant procedural dimension
of the broader concept of open justice. Open courts allow the public to
view courtroom proceedings. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “open
court” as follows:
“… a court to which the public have a right to be admitted… This
C term may mean either a court which has been formally convened
and declared open for the transaction of its proper judicial business,
or a court which is freely open to spectators…”10
The idea of open courts is crucial to maintaining public confidence
in the administration of justice:
D “The public must be able to enter any court to see that justice is
being done in that court, by a tribunal conscientiously doing its
best to do justice according to law.”11
Open courts ensure a check on the process of adjudication in
judicial proceedings. Bentham regarded publicity about courtroom
E proceedings as a mechanism to prevent improbity of judges:
“Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to
exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps
the judge himself, while trying, under trial.
... It is through publicity alone that justice becomes the mother of
F security. By publicity, the temple of justice is converted into a
school of the first order…”12

9
Ibid.
10
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990, page 1091. The Black’s Law Dictionary,
G 10th Edition, 2014, page 1263 defines an “open court” thus: “1. A court that is in
session, presided over by a judge, attended by the parties and their attorneys, and
engaged in judicial business… The term is distinguished from a court that is hearing
evidence in camera or from judge that is exercising merely magisterial powers. 2. A
court session that the public is free to attend…”
11
Supra note 7.
12
Supra note 2 at page 316-317.
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 111
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

6. Lord Diplock, speaking for the House of Lords in AG v A
Leveller Magazine, remarked that open courts are a safeguard against
judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy.13 Open courts, in his view, help
build public confidence in the administration of justice.14 The public’s
trust in the judicial system depends on their perception of how courts
function. Open courts make it possible for the public to develop reasonable
B
perceptions about the judiciary, by enabling them to directly observe
judicial behaviour, and the processes and outcomes of a case.
In the decision of the High Court of Australia, in Grollo v
Palmer,Gummow J dwelt on the idea of open courts:
“An essential attribute of the judicial power of the Commonwealth C
is the resolution of such controversies ... so as to provide final
results which are delivered in public after a public hearing, and,
where a judge is the tribunal of fact as well as law, are preceded
by grounds for decision which are animated by reasoning. An
objective of the exercise of the judicial power in each particular
case is the satisfaction of the parties to the dispute and the general D
public that, by these procedures, justice has both been done and
been seen to be done.”15
The Ministry of Justice in the UK, in its proposal to permit
broadcasting of court proceedings, has succinctly articulated the need
for open courts: E

“Few people have direct experience of court proceedings, and
overall public understanding of the criminal justice system is limited.
Most court sittings take place when many people are at work.
Many people, therefore, currently base their views on how the
system is portrayed on television, or in films. These dramatised F
accounts rarely portray what happens in court accurately. With
the range of technology now available, it should be easier for
people to access better information on court proceedings.” 16
13
House of Lords, as per Lord Diplock in AG v Leveller Magazine, [1979] AC 440, at
page 450. G
14
Ibid.
15
High Court of Australia, as per Gummow J in Grollo v Palmer, [1995] HCA 2.
16
Ministry of Justice, UK, Proposals to allow the broadcasting, filming, and recording
of selected court proceedings, making recommendations, 2012. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/217307/broadcasting-filming-recording-courts.pdf
H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A In the decision of the US Supreme Court in Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, Burger CJ observed:
“The early history of open trials in part reflects the widespread
acknowledgment, long before there were behavioural scientists,
that public trials had significant community therapeutic value…
B … People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their
institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are
prohibited from observing.”17
7. Public confidence in the judiciary and in the process of judicial
decision making is crucial for preserving the rule of law and to maintain
C the stability of the social fabric. Peoples’ access to the court signifies
that the public is willing to have disputes resolved in court and to obey
and accept judicial orders. Open courts effectively foster public
confidence by allowing litigants and members ofthe public to view
courtroom proceedings andensure that the judges apply the law in a fair
D and impartial manner.
B Indian Jurisprudence
8. The concept of open courts is not alien to the Indian legal
system. The Constitution adopts the concept in Article 145(4), which
states that the Supreme Court shall be an open court:
E
“(4) No judgment shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save in
open Court, and no report shall be made under Article 143 save in
accordance with an opinion also delivered in open Court.”
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) extend the principle of open courts
F
to all civil and criminal courts in India. Section 153-B of the CPC provides
that every civil court which tries a suit shall be deemed to be an open
court:
“Section 153-B. Place of trial to be deemed to be open
court.-
G
The place in which any Civil Court is held for the purpose of
trying any suit shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the
public generally may have access so far as the same can
conveniently contain them:
17
Supreme Court of United States in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, 448 US
H 555 (1980).
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 113
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, order at A
any stage of any inquiry into or trial of any particular case, that
the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access
to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court.”
Similarly, Section 327 of the CrPC also mandates criminal courts
to be open: B
“Section 327. - Court to be open.-
“[(1)] The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose
of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed to be an
open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far
as the same can conveniently contain them: C

Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks
fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular
case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not
have access to, or be or remain in, the room orbuilding used by
the Court.” D
Hence, all courts in India are open to the public and function as
open courts, except when the administration of justice requires public
access to the court to be restricted. The principle of open courts in India
recognises exceptions which are in the interest of fair administration of
justice. E
9. Various judgments of this Court have reinforced the importance
of open courts. The earliest and most significant judgment on this aspect
is the decision of a nine-judge Bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkarv
State of Maharashtra18 (“Mirajkar”). While upholding an oral order of
the High Court prohibiting the media to publish the evidence of a witness F
in a defamation suit, the majority emphasised the importance of open
courts. Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, speaking for the majority observed:
“20... It is well settled that in general, all cases brought before the
courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be heard in open
court. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the G
healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held
subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check
against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful
instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness,
18
(1966) 3 SCR 744. H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public
confidence in the administration of justice is of such great
significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad
proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial tribunals,
courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the
public admission to the court-room.”
B
Justice Gajendragadkar then quoted from Bentham (as noted in
Scott v Scott19):
“20... In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every
shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place
C can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where
there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of
justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards
against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while trying under
trial (in the sense that) the security of securities is publicity.”
D Even in his dissenting opinion, Justice Hidayatullah (as the learned
judge then was) agreed with the majority on the importance of an open
court system:
“90. …As we have fortunately inherited the English tradition of
holding trials (with a few exceptions to which I shall refer later) in
E public, I shall begin with the English practice. It has always been
the glory of the English system as opposed to the Continental, that
all trials are held ostiisapertis, that is, with open doors. This
principle is old… it is a direct guarantee of civil liberty and it
moved Bentham to say that it was the soul of Justice and that in
proportion as publicity had place, the checks on judicial injustice
F could be found.…”
Justice J C Shah elaborated on open justice but also recognised
the need to restrict access to protect the administration of justice, in
cases where it becomes necessary:
“129...Hearing in open court of causes is of the utmost importance
G
for maintaining confidence of the public in the impartial
administration of justice: it operates as a wholesome check upon
judicial behaviour as well as upon the conduct of the contending
parties and their witnesses. But hearing of a cause in public which
19
Supra note 1.
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 115
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

is only to secure administration of justice untainted must yield to A
the paramount object of administration of justice. If excessive
publicity itself operates as an instrument of injustice, the court
may not be slow, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do to put
such restraint upon publicity as is necessary to secure the court’s
primary object...”
B
Quoting Hegel in “Philosophy of Right,” Justice Bachawat added
that:
“140 … A court of justice is a public forum. It is through publicity
that the citizens are convinced that the court renders even-handed
justice, and it is, therefore, necessary that the trial should be open C
to the public and there should be no restraint on the publication of
the report of the court proceedings. The publicity generates public
confidence in the administration of justice. In rare and exceptional
cases only, the court may hold the trial behind closed doors, or
may forbid the publication of the report of its proceedings during
the pendency of the litigation. D

141. ...Hegel in his Philosophy of Right maintained that judicial
proceedings must be public, since the aim of the Court is justice,
which is a universal belonging to all.”
Key takeaways emerge from the opinions in Mirajkar: E
(i) Open courts serve as an instrument of inspiring public confidence
in the administration of justice;
(ii) Open courts act as a check on the judiciary;
(iii) Publicity of the judicial process is the soul of justice;
F
(iv) Open justice must yield to the paramount object of the
administration of justice, in case it becomes necessary to restrict
access in the facts of a particular case;and
(v) Open courts are essential for the objective and fair
administration of justice. G
10. Almost two decades later, in Olga Tellis v Bombay
Municipal Corporation,20 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that
eviction of slum-dwellers violated their right to earn a livelihood. Chief
20
(1985) 3 SCC 545.
H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A Justice Y V Chandrachud reiterated the value of a hearing, in emphasising
the principle that justice must also be seen to be done:
“47...justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to
be done… The appearance of injustice is the denial of justice. It
is the dialogue with the person likely to be affected by the proposed
B action which meets the requirement that justice must also be seen
to be done...
...Whatever its outcome, such a hearing represents a valued human
interaction in which the affected person experiences at least the
satisfaction of participating in the decision that vitally concerns
C her, and perhaps the separate satisfaction of receiving an
explanation of why the decision is being made in a certain way.
Both the right to be heard from, and the right to be told why, are
analytically distinct from the right to secure a different outcome;
these rights to interchange express the elementary idea that to be
a person, rather than a thing, is at least to be consulted about
D what is done with one. Justice Frankfurter captured part of this
sense of procedural justice when he wrote that the “validity and
moral authority of a conclusion largely depend on the mode by
which it was reached…No better instrument has been devised
for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious
E loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. Nor
has a better way been found for generating the feeling, so important
to a popular government, that justice has been done.”
These observations have been made in the context of analysing
the importance of the right to be heard. But Olga Tellis emphasised
F that not only the ends, but also the means of justice are important. The
purpose behind an open court system is to grant the affected party and
the public an opportunity to observe justice being dispensed. The process
by which justice is rendered has an important bearing on the confidence
which it inculcates in society. Knowledge of the process is a confidence
builder.
G
11. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v Prof. Manubhai
D. Shah,21 this Court examined the right claimed by a citizen to contribute
to an in-house magazine published by an instrumentality of the State.
Writing for the two-judge Bench, Justice A.M. Ahmadi (as the learned
21
(1992) 3 SCC 637.
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 117
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Chief Justice then was) dwelt on the significance of disseminating A
information in a democracy:
“8. ...The print media, the radio and the tiny screen play the role
of public educators, so vital to the growth of a healthy democracy...
...It cannot be gainsaid that modern communication mediums
advance public interest by informing the public of the events and B
developments that have taken place and thereby educating the
voters, a role considered significant for the vibrant functioning of
a democracy. Therefore, in any set-up, more so in a democratic
set-up like ours, dissemination of news and views for popular
consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same must be C
frowned upon unless it falls within the mischief of Article 19(2) of
the Constitution...”
12. More recently, in Mohd. Shahabuddin v State of Bihar,22 a
two-judge Bench of this Court was examining a challenge to a notification
by the Patna High Court declaring the premises for conducting a D
trial.Justice M K Sharma, in his concurring opinion, described open courts:
“215... In my considered view an “open court” is a court to which
general public has a right to be admitted and access to the court is
granted to all the persons desirous of entering the court to observe
the conduct of the judicial proceedings...” E
Through these judicial decisions, this Court has recognised the
importance of open courtrooms as a means of allowing the public to
view the process of rendering of justice. First-hand access to court
hearings enables the publicand litigants to witness the dialogue between
the judges and the advocates and to form an informed opinion about the F
judicial process.
13. The impact of open courts in our country is diminished by the
fact that a large segment of the society rarely has an opportunity to
attend court proceedings. This is due to constraints like poverty, illiteracy,
distance, cost and lack of awareness about court proceedings. Litigants
G
depend on information provided by lawyers about what has transpired
during the course of hearings. Others, who may not be personally involved
in a litigation, depend on the information provided about judicial decisions
in newspapers and in theelectronic media. When the description of cases
22
(2010) 4 SCC 653.
H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A is accurate and comprehensive, it serves the cause of open justice.
However, if a report on a judicial hearing is inaccurate, it impedes the
public’s right to know. Courts, though open in law and in fact, become
far removed from the lives of individual citizens. This is anomalous because
courts exist primarily to provide justice to them.
B C Technology and Open Court
14. In the present age of technology, it is no longer sufficient to
rely solely on the media to deliver information about the hearings of
cases and their outcomes. Technology has become an inevitable facet
of all aspects of life. Internet penetration and increase in the use of
C smart phones has revolutionised how we communicate. As on 31 March
2018, India had a total of 1,206.22 million telecom subscribers and 493.96
million internet users.23 Technology can enhance public access, ensure
transparency and pave the way for active citizen involvement in the
functioning of state institutions. Courts must also take the aid of technology
to enhance the principle of open courts by moving beyond physical
D accessibility to virtual accessibility.
15. The importance of making justice accessible to the common
citizen in its truest sense was explained by Lord Neuberger in his Judicial
Studies Board speech (2011):

E “…if justice is seen to be done it must be understandable.
Judgments must be open not only in the sense of being available
to the public, but, so far as possible given the technical and complex
nature of much of our law; they must also be clear and easily
interpretable by lawyers. And also to non-lawyers. In an age when
it seems more likely than ever that citizens will have to represent
F themselves, this is becoming increasingly important.”24
16. This Court and the High Courts in India have pro-actively
adopted technology to make the judicial process more
accessible,organised, transparent, and simple. For instance, many courts
in the country, including this Court, now have display boards in the court
G premises and on their official websites which enable legal practitioners
23
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance
Indicators January-March, 2018. Available at: https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/
PIReport27062018_0.pdf
24
Neuberger, Lord of Abbotbury (Master of Rolls) 2011, ‘Open justice unbound?’,
Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture, 16 March 2011. Available at: http://
H netk.net.au/judges/neuberger2.pdf
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 119
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

and the public to view the progress of the cause list. This Court and the A
High Courts maintain websites where they upload cause lists, daily orders,
and judgments. They also maintain an archive of previous judgments,
allowing users to search for a specific judgment using various inputs.
17. Recent judgments of this Court also indicate the willingness
of this Court to adapt to modern technology for the advancement of B
justice. In Krishna Veni Nagam v Harish Nagam,25 this Court had
taken into consideration technological developments to regulate the use
of video conferencing for certain categories of cases. Justice A.K. Goel
on behalf of himself and Justice Lalit directed:
“16. The advancement of technology ought to be utilised also for C
service on parties or receiving communication from the parties.
Every District Court must have at least one e-mail ID.
Administrative instructions for directions can be issued to permit
the litigants to access the court, especially when litigant is located
outside the local jurisdiction of the Court. A designated officer/
manager of a District Court may suitably respond to such e-mail D
in the manner permitted as per the administrative instructions.
Similarly, a manager/information officer in every District Court
may be accessible on a notified telephone during notified hours as
per the instructions. These steps may, to some extent, take care
of the problems of the litigants.” E
In Santhini v Vijaya Venketesh, 26 where this Court was
re-considering the issue of permitting video-conferencing for matrimonial
disputes, one of us (D Y Chandrachud, J.) in his dissenting opinion,
discussed the importance of using technology to enhance the delivery of
justice: F
“89. Technology must also be seen as a way of bringing services
into remote areas to deal with problems associated with the justice
delivery system. With the increasing cost of travelling and other
expenses, videoconferencing can provide a cost-effective and
efficient alternative. Solutions based on modern technology allow G
the court to enhance the quality and effectiveness of the
administration of justice. The use of technology can maximise
efficiency and develop innovative methods for delivering legal
25
(2017) 4 SCC 150.
26
(2018) 1 SCC 1. H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A services. Technology-based solutions must be adopted to facilitate
access to justice... Repeated adjournments break the back of the
litigant. We must embrace technology and not retard its application,
to make the administration of justice efficient.”
C.1 ICT in Indian courts27
B Technology has made modernity possible. The interplay between
technology and law has allowed dissemination of legal information with
a veritable click of a button. We have designed processes and systems
to suit the unique requirements of our judicial system. The Indian judiciary
has incorporated Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
C under the aegis of the e-Courts Integrated Mission Mode Project (e-
Courts Project). This has been a part of the National e-Governance
Plan (NeGP) which has been implemented in all High Courts and the
District Courts of India. It was based on the ‘National Policy and Action
Plan for Implementation of Information and Communication Technology’
prepared by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India in 2005.
D The 2005 e-Committee Report proposed three phases for implementation
of the e-Courts Project.
The e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India and the
Department of Justice, Government of India, through a proper
management of the e-Courts Projecthave ensured efficiencyin the judicial
E process across 21,000 courts in the district judiciary in India.Phase-I of
the e-Courts Project was approved in 2010 and enabled computerisation
of 14,249 courts in the district judiciary by 2015. The objective of the
ongoing Phase—II of this project is to enhance judicial service delivery
for litigants and lawyers by improving infrastructure and providing
F technology-enabled judicial processes. It involves improved ICT
infrastructure, videoconferencing, improved access across seven
platforms including a web portal, app, judicial service centers and kiosks.
The e-Courts Projectalso includes capacity building of officers, ICT
provisioning of District Legal Service Authorities, Taluka Legal Service
Committees, State Judicial Academies and judicial process re-
G engineering.Currently, the e-Courts project caters to more than 21,000
courts and has been implemented in more than 600 districts, 3,000 court
complexes and 6,400 establishments.
27
The websites of Department of Justice, Government of India (doj.gov.in/) and E-
courts services(ecourts.gov.in/) contains fair amount of information on the ongoing
e-Courts Project.
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 121
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

C.2 Technology and Implementation A
One of the objectives of the e-Courts Project is to make the ICT
infrastructurecomprising of computer hardware, Local Area Network
(LAN), Wide Area Network (WAN), information kiosks,UPS, renewable
energy-basedpower backup and other peripherals available in the district
judiciary. B
The e-Courts Project is developed on Open Source Technology
by the National Informatics Centre (NIC), a Central Government
department under the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology. A single unified Case Information System (CIS) Software
has been developed and made available to the entire district judiciary in C
India, for catering to the diversified requirements of the country in terms
of local procedures, practices and languages. CIS Version 3.0 has been
made available in all the district and taluka courts. 15 High Courts are
already equipped withCIS Version 1.0.
The e-Committee carried out extensive capacity building exercises D
to train judicial officers and administrative staff. The project is manned
and managed by the court staff and the staff is trained in the use of
computers.Some of them are also selected to be trained as system
administrators.
C.3 Platforms created for service delivery E
28
(i) e-Courts Portal: Online mechanisms (websites) are available
for stakeholders such as litigants, advocates, government
agencies, and the police to track case status, view cause lists,
judgments and daily orders. The services.ecourts.gov.in portal
is a one stop access point where a person can locate a case F
from any court across the country by using different search
criteria available on the website. Data is available on the portal
for disposed of and pending civil and criminal cases across the
country. The portal also contains judgments and orders of the
district judiciary.
G
(ii) Mobile App: e-Courts Services mobile app available on Android
and iOS provides facility for all stakeholders including advocates
and parties, to create a portfolio of cases in which they are
associated and track them for future alerts. A facility to search
28
Online services are available at –(i) ecourts.gov.in, (ii) services.ecourts.gov.in and
(iii) districts.ecourts.gov.in H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A the case by a QR Code is also provided and the App has been
downloaded multiple times.
(iii) SMS Push: Litigants and advocates get an SMS alert on their
cell phones, in case of any adjournment, scrutiny, registration,
transfer of case, disposal, uploading of orders, etc.
B (iv) SMS Pull:This facility allows advocates and litigantsto send
the CNR number (which is a unique number tagged for every
single case in the country) and receive a response with the
current status of the case.
(v) Automated e-Mails: Litigants, advocates and police stations
C receive information on regular e-mails in relation to thecause
lists, transfer of cases, disposal, copies of orders and judgments.
(vi) Touch Screen Kiosks and Service Centre: Dissemination of
case status has been made simplewith the installation of touch
screen kiosks in various court complexes across the country.
D This allows litigants and advocates to view their case status at
the touch of a button. The same information can also be
obtained from Judicial Service Centres established in court
complexes.
(vii) E-Payment:In order to facilitate ease of payments, online
E payment of court fees, fines, penalties and judicial deposits
through the epay.ecourts.gov.in has been facilitated. Citizens
can make payments online without the use of cheques, cash or
stamps,with the help of this portal.
(viii) E-Filing:For convenience, facility for online filing of cases
F and case papers with the court registry has been provided.
This facility is integrated with standard application software
across all the districts and subordinate courts.
C.4 National Judicial Data Grid
The NJDG is a public portal that provides a database of pending
G and disposed of cases in various High Courts and District Courts across
India.The NJDG portal njdg.ecourts.gov.in provides transparency in
the judicial system to all citizens by allowing them to view statistics of
cases pending before various courts.The World Bank has also
acknowledged NJDG as a significant innovation. It serves as a national
H judicial data warehouse that may be used to shape legislative policy.
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 123
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

C.5 Other facilities created to speed up justice delivery A
(i) NSTEP: National Software and Tracking of Electronic Process,
is a mechanism that consists ofa centralised service tracking
application and a mobile app for court bailiffs. NSTEP has
been created for speedy delivery of process and to reduce
inordinate delays in judicial procedures. The mobile app, B
equipped with GPS location tracking assists the bailiffs in real-
time and transparent tracking of services. The mobile app also
has the facility to record the photo and signature of the receiver.
In case of non-service of notice or communication, the mobile
application instantly communicates it to the central NSTEP
server. C

(ii) Video Conferencing: In an effort to speed up the judicial
process, video-conferencing facilities connecting courts and
jails have been established in 488 courts and 342 jails across
India.
D
C.6 Concept of Video-Streaming/Web-Cast
Advancement in technology and increased internet penetration
has facilitated transmission of live or pre-recorded video feed to devices
like computers, tabs and mobiles. Live-webcast or streaming of court
proceedings in real time can be implemented through available E
technological solutions. Live-webcast or streaming is the fastest method
for communicating and is most suited for connecting geographically
dispersed audiences.
C.7 Virtual reality as an extension of the open court
The time has come for this Court to take a step further in adopting F
technology and to enable live-streaming of its proceedings.
Live-streaming of courtroom proceedings is an extension of the principle
of open courts. Live-streaming will have the ability to reach a wide
number of audiences with the touch of a button. It will enable litigants
and members of the public to have a virtual experience of courtroom
G
proceedings even outside the courtroom premises.
18. There are multiple reasons why live-streaming will be beneficial
to the judicial system:
a. The technology of live-streaming injects radical immediacy into
courtroom proceedings. Each hearing is made public within H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A seconds of its occurrence. It enables viewers to have virtual
access to courtroom proceedings as they unfold;
b. Introduction of live-streaming will effectuate the public’s right
to know about court proceedings. It will enable those affected
by the decisions of the Court to observe the manner in which
B judicial decisions are made. It will help bring the work of the
judiciary to the lives of citizens;
c. Live-streaming of courtroom proceedings will reduce the
public’s reliance on second-hand narratives to obtain information
about important judgments of the Court and the course of judicial
C hearings. Society will be able to view court proceedings first
hand and form reasoned and educated opinions about the
functioning of courts. This will help reduce misinformation and
misunderstanding about the judicial process;
d. Viewing court proceedings will also serve an educational
D purpose. Law students will be able to observe and learn from
the interactions between the Bar and the Bench. The archives
will constitute a rich source for aspiring advocates and
academicians to study legal advocacy procedures,interpretation
of the law, and oratory skills, among other things. It will further
promote research into the institutional functioning of the courts.
E Live-streaming and broadcasting will also increase the reach
of the courts as it can penetrate to every part of the country;
e. Live-streaming will enhance the rule of law and promote better
understanding of legal governance as part of the functioning
of democracy;
F
f. Live-streaming will remove physical barriers to viewing court
proceedings by enabling the public to view proceedings from
outside courtroom premises. This will also reduce the
congestion which is currently plaguing courtrooms. It will reduce
the need for litigants to travel to the courts to observe the
G proceedings of their cases;
g. Live-streaming is a significant instrument of enhancing the
accountability of judicial institutions and of all those who
participate in the judicial process. Delay in the dispensation of
justice is a matter of serious concern. Live-streaming of court
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 125
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

proceedings will enable members of the public to know of the A
causes of adjournments and the reasons why hearings are
delayed; and
h. Above all, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Live-streaming as
an extension of the principle of open courts will ensure that the
interface between a court hearing with virtual reality will result B
in the dissemination of information in the widest possible sense,
imparting transparency and accountability to the judicial
process.
Major common law jurisdictions across the globe have already
embraced the concept of live-streaming and broadcasting courtroom C
proceedings. It may be useful to look at the evolution of the concept in a
few jurisdictions, and the practices followed by them.
D Comparative Law
19. This section takes a measured look at the development of the
principle of open justice in common law and other jurisdictions. It D
examines how courts in other countries have addressed concerns of
privacy, confidentiality and sensitivity of litigants, witnesses and cases.
(i) United Kingdom
The Supreme Court of UK permits broadcasting of its courtroom E
proceedings.29 The Eighth Practice Direction of the Supreme Court
permits “video footage of proceedings before the Court to be broadcast
where this does not affect the administration of justice.”30 Three national
broadcasters- BBC, ITN, and Sky News31 are permitted to film and
broadcast the Supreme Court proceedings, “in accordance with the
protocol which has been agreed with.”32 The protocol prohibits recording F
of certain types of proceedings like private discussions between litigants
and their counsel.33 The footage is only allowed to be used for
informational purposes in programs like news, current affairs, education,
and legal training.34 However, any broadcasting which may detract from
29
The live-streaming proceedings of Supreme Court of United Kingdom. Available at: G
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
30
The Supreme Court of United Kingdom, Practice Direction 8, para 8.17.1. Available
at https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/practice-direction-08.pdf
31
Supra note 16.
32
Supra note 30.
33
Ibid.
34
Supra note 16. H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A the seriousness or integrity of the proceedings, like entertainment
programmes, satirical programmes, political party broadcasts, and
advertising or promotion,is not permitted.35 Further, any still images are
always required to be used “in a way that has regard to the dignity of the
Court and its functions as a working body.”36
B Sky News airs live broadcasts of the UK Supreme Court’s
hearings.37 By the end of 2011, the UK Supreme Court permitted
journalists to use live text-based communications, including social media
platform Twitter, during court hearings.38The presiding judge, however,
retains full discretion to prohibit such communications in the interest of
justice. 39 The UK Supreme Court has its own Twitter handle
C (@UKSupremeCourt) which it uses to update the public about its
judgments.40 It also has a YouTube channel where it showcases short
summaries of judgments read out by the judges.41
In 2013, the UK permitted audio-visual coverage of the Court of
Appeals (Civil and Criminal).42The broadcast is subject to certain
D limitations - (a) only the judgments and lawyers’ arguments are permitted
to be filmed. Victims and witnesses are not recorded; and (b) live
broadcasts are delivered with a seventy seconds delay.43 According to
British legal commentator, Joshua Rozenberg, the seventy seconds delay
is favourable and necessary because:
E “That gives everyone involved just over a minute to work out that
something should not be heard or seen in public before the
recording leaves the courtroom. The problem could be mild
profanity…Somebody might quote information that is protected
by a court order or is unreportable for some other reason. Perhaps
F
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
The official Twitter handle of UK Supreme Court. Available at: https://twitter.com/
G uksupremecourt
41
The official YouTube handle of UK Supreme Court. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt
42
Ravid, Itay, Tweeting #Justice: Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceedings in a
World of Shifting Technology (March 9, 2017). 35(1) Cardozo Arts and Entertainment
Law Journal 41 (2017).
43
Ibid.
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 127
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the cameras might catch a glimpse of someone whose face must A
not be included in court broadcasts, such as the appellant or a
witness.”44
The court retains control over the live broadcast.A single video-
journalist is authorised to record and regulate the live proceedings45 andis
bound by the court’s orders.46Only the appointed journalist or his substitute B
is permitted to take pictures in court.47The appointed journalist is jointly
employed by the four media groups which are funding the project- Sky
News, ITN, BBC and the Press Association news agency.48 Only the
appointed journalist or his substitute is permitted to take pictures in court.49
Although the appointed journalist has the permission to film any of the
fifteen courtrooms in which the Court of Appeals may sit, practically, C
the media organisations pick only one court at a time for live broadcast.50
The Court of Appeals was opened for broadcasting upon the
recommendations of the Ministry of Justice,in its 2012 Report.51 Making
a case for extending technological change to the remaining courts in the
UK, the Ministry of Justice had reasoned that: D

“In principle the majority of our courts are open to all members of
the public who wish to attend, but in practice very few people
have the time or opportunity to see what happens in our courts in
person. In addition, the extent of press coverage of court cases,
particularly in local courts has declined in recent years. In cases E
of particular interest to the public, there may not be sufficient
space in the public gallery for all those who wish to attend.” 52
The Ministry had recommended broadcasting the Court of Appeals’
proceedings as they do not involve victims or witnesses:
F
“Cases in the Court of Appeal normally deal with complex issues
of law or evidence, and victims and witnesses rarely appear in
44
Joshua Rozenberg, Televising the Courts: The Time Has Come, The Guardian, 23
October 2013. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/oct/23/televising-
courts-live-broadcasting-joshua-rozenberg
45
Ibid. G
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Supra note 16.
52
Ibid. H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A order to provide new evidence. Given the complexity of legal issues
in Court of Appeal cases, we believe that allowing advocates’
arguments to be filmed in addition to judgments would be more
likely to improve public understanding than judgments alone. We
are therefore proposing to allow judgments and legal arguments
from cases before the Court of Appeal to be broadcast.”53
B
Live-streaming of the Court of Appeals’ hearings opened the doors
to other courts in the UK for broadcasting. The UK Parliament enacted
the Crime and Courts Act, 2013, which, inter alia, enables recording of
court proceedings with the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the
Lord Chief Justice. This was enacted as a primary legislation to empower
C the Lord Chancellor, with the Lord Chief Justice, “to set out in secondary
legislation the specific circumstances in which the prohibition on cameras
in courts…will be disapplied.”54
In 2016, the Ministry of Justice launched a three-month pilot
program to experiment with broadcasting the proceedings of eight England
D and Welsh Crown Courts.55 This was limited to judges’ sentencing
remarks and the footage was not made available to the public. 56 The
question of broadcasting the Crown Court’s hearings is currently pending
consideration before the Ministry of Justice, as it involves larger issues
of safeguarding witnesses and victims.57
E (ii) South Africa
In South Africa, the presence of cameras in the courtroom is a
recent development and is at a relatively nascent stage. In 2017, the
Supreme Court of Appeal (which is the highest court of appeal in South
Africa)set a precedent permitting broadcasting of proceedings in all courts
F of South Africa.58 Now, the media is permitted to live broadcast the
proceedings of all South African courts.While permitting the media to
live broadcast the court proceedings, Ponna JA made an interesting
observation that it was time for courts to ‘yield to a new reality:’
53
Ibid.
54
G Ibid.
55
Supra note 42.
56
Ibid.
57
The Telegraph, Crown Court sentencing being recorded for pilot projects that could
bring judges’ comments to TV, 27 July 2016. Available at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/2016/07/27/crown-court-sentencing-being-recorded-for-pilot-project-that-cou/
58
The NDPP v Media 24 Limited & others and HC Van Breda v Media 24 Limited &
H others (425/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97.
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 129
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

“It is thus important to emphasise that giving effect to the principle A
of open justice and its underlying aims now means more than
merely keeping the courtroom doors open. It means that court
proceedings must where possible be meaningfully accessible to
any member of the public who wishes to be timeously and
accurately apprised of such proceedings. Broadcasting of court
B
proceedings enables this to occur.”59
Witnesses are granted the freedom to object to broadcasting their
testimony, subject to the court’s final discretion. This discretion, Ponna
JA (speaking for the bench) emphasised, must be exercised by the courts
on a case-by-case basis, by conducting an individualised enquiry.60Where
the judge finds that the objections of the witness are valid, the court C
considers alternatives to regular photographic or television coverage.61
(iii) Canada
The Canadian Supreme Court is considered a pioneer for adapting
itself to technology and permitting audio-visual broadcasting of its
proceedings. 62 In 1993, the Canadian Supreme Court conducted a D
successful pilot project, live televising the hearings of three high profile
cases. The broadcasts were governed by the following guidelines:
“(a) The case to be filmed will be selected by the Chief Justice.
(b) The Chief Justice or presiding Justice may limit or terminate
media coverage to protect the rights of the parties; the dignity of E
the court; to assure the orderly conduct of the proceedings; or for
any other reason considered necessary or appropriate. (c) No
direct public expense is to be incurred for wiring, or personnel
needed to provide media coverage.”63
The Canadian Supreme Court permits the Canadian Parliamentary
F
Press Gallery to live broadcast all appeals before it.64 The Canadian
Parliamentary Affairs Channel (CPAC) is also allowedto televise the
appeal hearings of the Court, but at a later date.65 The broadcasts are
59
Ibid at para 46.
60
Ibid at para 72.
61
Ibid at para 73. G
62
Kyu Ho Youm, Cameras in the Courtroom in the Twenty-First Century: e U.S.
Supreme Court Learning From Abroad?, 2012 BYU L. Rev. 1989 (2012).
63
Ibid.
64
Supreme Court of Canada, Access to the Court. Available at https://www.scc-csc.ca/
media/acc-eng.aspx
65
Daniel Stepniak, ‘Audio Visual Coverage of Courts, A Comparative Analysis,’
Cambridge University Press (2008). H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A subject to guidelines which ensure that the Court retains control over the
filming process.66 Although the CPAC decides which cases to broadcast,
the Supreme Court has the discretion to prohibit the filming of specific
appeals.67 The CPAC is permitted to share the broadcast feed with other
television networks, for use as snippets in news programs. 68
B At present, four cameras are installed in the Supreme Court.69
The appeal hearings have been broadcast since 2009 and are archived
on the Court’s website.70 The cameras are installed by the Court and
are operated by the Court’s employees. Outside cameras are not
permitted except for special events.71 The copyright over the proceedings
is retained by the Court.72 Before any case can be filmed, the Supreme
C Court requires parties to consent to the recording and televising of the
proceedings.73 Any party seeking to exclude their case from the broadcast
must convey the same to the Registrar at least two weeks prior to the
hearing date.74
(iv) Australia
D
Australia follows an open court system, with courts in all Australian
jurisdictions admitting television cameras into courtrooms.75 Since 2013,
audio-visual recordings of the High Court of Australiahave been made
available to the public.76 The entire process of filming and broadcasting
is carried out by the Court staff.77 Transcripts of the hearings are made
E available within a day or two of most hearings.78 The High Court has
stated that initially the recordings will be available after a few business
days, however, the Court will endeavour to reduce the number of days. 79
66
Ibid.
67
Supra note 62.
68
F Ibid.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid.
71
Ibid.
72
Supra note 65.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
75
G See supra note 65.
76
High Court of Australia, Press Release, 01 October 2013. Available at:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/news/MR-audio-visual-recordings-Oct13.pdf.
77
High Court of Australia, Photography and Recording Guidelines. Available at:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/photography-and-recording
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid.
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 131
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Apart from the High Court, most Australian courts do not maintain A
a consistent policy on admitting television cameras into the courtroom.80
Filming is permitted on an ad hoc basis and is usually restricted to the
recording of file and overlay footage or ceremonial sittings.81
(v) New Zealand
New Zealand allows wide access to the media in courts and has B
one of the most progressive live broadcast policies among common law
countries.82 Traditionally, members of the media were only permitted to
make hand-written notes of court proceedings, without the use of any
electronic device.83 From 1996 to 1998, New Zealand conducted a three
year pilot project which covered more than twenty cases.84 All courts in C
New Zealand were covered under the pilot, contingent on two main
rules:
“1. Material obtained from expanded media coverage which is
broadcast shall be presented in a way which gives an accurate,
impartial and balanced coverage of the proceedings and of the D
parties involved. Any such broadcast is to be without editorial
comment and to be of at least two minutes duration per news
item.
2. There shall be no use of material obtained from expanded media
coverage otherwise than for normal news programmes or articles E
unless prior approval for that use has been given by the trial judge
or, where that judge is unavailable, another judge of the relevant
court.”85
New Zealand permits media houses to broadcast court proceedings
with the approval of the court.86 The broadcast is governed by a set of F
guidelines which balance the principle of open justice with the need for
80
Supra note 65 at page 210-211.
81
Ibid.
82
See supra note 65.
83
New Zealand, Report to Chief Justice on In-Court Media Coverage (2015), at para
7. Available at https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/In-Court-Media-Review/In-Court- G
Media-Revie w/ReporttoChiefJusticeonincourtmediacoverageF6_7_15_
20150720.pdf
84
Ibid, at para 15.
85
Ibid, at para 14.
86
New Zealand, In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines (2016). Available at: https://
ww w. c o u r ts o f n z . go v t. n z /go i ng- t o - co ur t / med i a/ r u le s- a n d- r e so ur c e s/
INCOURTMEDIACOVERAGEGUIDELINES2016T.pdf H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A a fair trial. They impose upon the media the responsibility to provide “an
accurate, fair and balanced report of the hearing” without publishing
anything out of context.87 They also provide for a ten minute delay in
broadcasting audio and video recordings.88 Under the guidelines, any
media outlet wishing to film and broadcast court proceedings is required
to seek prior written permission from the court for each case.89 The
B
discretion of the court to grant permission is guided by the following
considerations:
“a. the need for a fair trial;
b. the desirability of open justice;
C
c. the principle that the media have an important role in the
reporting of trials as the eyes and ears of the public;
d. court obligations to the victims of offences; and
e. the interests and reasonable concerns and perceptions of the
D parties, victims and witnesses.”90
The Supreme Court permits recording of its proceedings in majority
of the cases, unless specifically objected to by the parties.91 The Supreme
Court’s media guidelines, published upon its establishment in 2004, indicate
that audio-visual covering is to be considered as the norm, rather than
E the exception:
“Subject to paragraph (5), all applications to televise or otherwise
record proceedings of the Supreme Court will be deemed to be
approved unless a party indicates, within 3 days of being advised
by the registrar of the application, that the party objects to it.”92
F
(vi) United States
The US Supreme Court does not permit video recording or
photography of its proceedings. It releases audio transcripts of the oral
87
Ibid.
G 88
Ibid, at para 2.1.
89
Ibid, at para 5.5.
90
Ibid at para 2.3.
91
Supra note 65, at page 347.
92
New Zealand Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court Media Guidelines (2004). Available
at: https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/media-centre/media-
information/media-guide/appendices/appendix-e/
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 133
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

arguments on the same day. Audio recordings of each week’s oral A
arguments are released on the court’s website93 at the end of the week.
Each Federal Court of Appeals has the discretion to provide audio
or video recordings of its proceedings, subject to guidelines framed by
the court. Since 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
approved video broadcasting of all cases before it, except those prohibited B
by law through guidelines.94 The media needs to take prior approval of
the court to record the proceedings.95 The presiding judge is granted
absolute discretion to limit or terminate media coverage, or direct the
removal of camera coverage personnel when necessary, in order to
protect the rights of the parties or aid the conduct of proceedings.96 The
video and audio recordings of the federal judiciary are hosted on YouTube C
and are also available on the court’s official website.97 The district and
lower courts in each state permit some form of audio or video broadcasting
and recording of its proceedings, subject to guidelines and rules.98
(vii) Brazil
In 2002, the President of Brazil sanctioned a law enabling the D
creation of a public television channel dedicated to the judiciary and to
the Supreme Court.99 The court sessions of the Supreme Court (Supremo
Tribunal Federal) are broadcast online100 on either ‘TV Justica’101 or
‘RadioJustica’102 and operated by the Supreme Court. Aside from being
aired on television and radio, the proceedings can also be streamed online E
as the Court maintains a Twitter account103 and a YouTube channel.104
93
The official website of the Supreme Court of the United States. Available at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2017
94
The United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, Guidelines for Broadcasting,
Recording, and Still Photography in the Courtroom. Available at: h t t p s : /
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/news_media/camera.guidelines. pdf
95
Ibid. F
96
Ibid.
97
The official YouTube handle of US Courts. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/
user/uscourts
98
As held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Chandler v Florida, 449 U.S.
560 (1981).
99
Meet the Justice TV. Available at official website: http://www.tvjustica.jus.br/index/
G
conheca
100
Supra note 62.
101
TV Justica. Available at official website: http://www.tvjustica.jus.br/
102
Radio Justica. Available at official website: www.radiojustica.jus.br/
103
The official Twitter handle of Supreme Court of Brazil. Available at: https://
twitter.com/stf_oficial
104
The official YouTube handle of Supreme Court of Brazil. Available at: https:// H
www.youtube.com/user/stf
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A The unique feature of the Brazilian Supreme Court is that cameras are
permitted into the conferences where the judges deliberate.105
(viii) International Courts
International courts have also embraced the idea of broadcasting
their court proceedings. The International Criminal Court (ICC) permits
B televising of its cases, although with a thirty minute delay.106 The ICC
has a YouTube channel where it broadcasts case proceedings, press
conferences, and informative videos in different languages. 107 In the
European Court on Human Rights (ECHR), all hearings are permitted
to be made public, unless specifically disallowed by the Court.108 The
C 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.109
20. On examining the practices followed by the jurisdictions
D discussed above, 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
E 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.
F 21. Live-streaming of court proceedings is manifestly in public
interest. It is important to re-emphasise the significance of live-streaming
as an extension of the principle of open justice and open courts. However,
the process of live-streaming should be subjected to carefully structured
105
Supra note 62.
106
Official website of International Criminal Court. Available at: https://www.icc-
G cpi.int/
107
Official YouTube Channel of International Criminal Court. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/user/IntlCriminalCourt/videos
108
Rule 63, Rules of Court, ECHR, 01 Aug 2018. Available at:
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf
109
ECHR, Webcast of hearings. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/
home.aspx?p=hearings&c=
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 135
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

guidelines. Initially, a pilot project may be conducted for about three A
months, by live-streaming only cases of national and constitutional
importance in the Chief Justice’s Court. Progressively, as and when the
infrastructure is ready, this Court can expand the ambit of live-streaming
to cover all cases (except for the ones which are excluded).
22. The need for live-streaming of proceedings applies with equal B
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 C
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 D
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.
23. 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 E
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 F
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. G
24. 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 H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A 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,
B
commensurate with available resources and technical support. The High
Courts would have to determine the modalities for doing so by framing
appropriate rules.
25. Comprehensive guidelines for live-streaming of Court
proceedings have been submitted byMr K K Venugopal, learned Attorney
C General of India, Ms Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel, MrVirag
Gupta, learned Counsel and Mr Mathews J Nedumpara, learned Counsel.
These have been duly considered in framing the model guidelines below.
The model guidelines are based on the following broad principles:
a. Article 145 (1) of the Constitution provides:
D
“Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the
Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of
the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice
and procedure of the Court...”

E Determining the modalities for live-streaming of the proceedings
of this Court can appropriately be dealt with under the Rules which
should be framed in pursuance of Article 145(1). Regulating, generally,
the practice and procedure of the Court would extend to formulating
Rules for live-streaming.
b. Not all cases may be live-streamed. Certain sensitive cases
F
like matrimonial or sexual assault cases should be excluded from the
process of live-streaming;
c. Live-streaming will be carried out with a minimal delay to allow
time for screening sensitive information or any exchange which should
not be streamed;
G
d. The final authority to regulate suspension or prohibition of live-
streaming in a particular case where the administration of justice so
requires, must be with the presiding judge of each court;
e. Live-streaming will be carried out only by persons or any agency
H authorized under the directions of the Chief Justice of India, or as
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 137
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

contemplated in the Rules. The streaming and broadcasting will be hosted A
by this Court on its website with the assistance of the National Informatics
Centre and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology;
f. The copyright over all the material recorded and broadcast in
this Court shall vest with this Court only; and
g. The recordings and broadcast may not be used by anyone for B
commercial purposes.
h. Archives shall be maintained of all live-streaming, to be hosted
on the web-site of the Court.
26. The model guidelines are of a suggested nature and will not C
detract from the authority of the Court to frame Rules under Article
145(1) in order to determineall 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 D
down norms for the use of the feed.
E Model guidelines for broadcasting of the proceedings
and other judicial events of the Supreme Court of India
A. Kind of matters to be live-streamed
E
1. Proceedings involving the hearing of cases before the Supreme
Court shall be live-streamed in the manner provided below:
a) Cases falling under the following categories shall be excluded
as a class from live-streaming:
(i) Matrimonial matters, including transfer petitions; F

(ii) Cases involving sensitive issues as in the nature of sexual
assault; and
(iii) Matters where children and juveniles are involved, like
POCSO cases. G
b) Apart from the general prohibition on streaming cases falling in
the above categories, the presiding judge of each courtroom
shall have the discretion to disallow live-streaming for specific
cases where, in his/her opinion, publicity would prejudice the
interests of justice. This may be intimated by the presiding
H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A judge in advance or live-streaming may be suspended as and
when a matter is being heard; and
c) Where objections are filed by a litigant against live-streaming
of a case on grounds of privacy, confidentiality, or the
administration of justice, the final authority on live-streaming
B the case shall lie with the presiding judge.
2. In addition to live-streaming of courtroom proceedings, the
following events may also be live-streamed in future subject to the
provisions of the Rules:
(a) Oath ceremonies of the Judges of the Supreme Court and
C speeches delivered by retiring judges and other judges in the farewell
ceremony of the respective Supreme Court Judges; and
(b) Addresses delivered in judicial conferences or Full Court
References or any event organized by the Supreme Court or by advocate
associations affiliated to the Supreme Court or any other events.
D
B. Manner of live-streaming
1. Live-streamed and archived videos of the broadcast shall be
made available on the official website of the Supreme Court.
The recorded broadcast of each day shall be made available
as archives on the official website of the Supreme Court by
E
the end of the day;
2. Live-streaming shall commence as soon as the judges arrive in
the courtroom and shall continue till the Bench rises;
3. The presiding judge of the courtroom shall be provided with an
F appropriate device for directing the technical team to stop live-
streaming, if the Bench deems it necessary in the interest of
administration of justice;
4. Live-streaming of the proceedings should be carried out with a
delay of two minutes;
G 5. Proceedings shall only be live-streamed during working hours
of the court;
6. Courtroom proceedings will continue to be live-streamed unless
the presiding judge orders the recording to be paused or
suspended;
H
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 139
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

7. To give full effect to the process of live-streaming, advocates A
addressing the Bench, and judges addressing the Bar, must
use microphones, while addressing the Court;
8. Recording of courtroom proceedings shall be done by the
Registry with the technical support of National Informatics
Centre or any other public/ private agency authorised by the B
Supreme Court or the Ministry of Information and
Technology;and
9. The portions of proceedings which are not broadcast online, on
the direction of the presiding judge of the Bench shall not be
made part of the official records and shall be placed separately C
as ‘confidential records’.
C. Technical specifications for live-streaming
1. Live-streaming shall be conducted by the Supreme Court with
its own camera-persons or by an authorized agency. No person
who is not authorized by the Supreme Court will be permitted D
to record any proceeding;
2. Cameras should be focused only on the judges and advocates
pleading before the Bench in the matter being live-streamed;
3. Cameras shall not film the media and visitor’s galleries;
E
4. Cameras may zoom in on the Bench when any judge is dictating
an order or judgment or making any observation or enquiry to
the advocate; and
5. The following communications shall not be filmed:
a) Discussions among the judges on the Bench; F

b) Any judge giving instructions to the administrative staff of
the courtroom;
c) Any staff member communicating any message to the judge
or circulating any document to the judge; G
d) Notes taken down by the judge during the court proceedings;
and
e) Notes made by an advocate either on paper or in electronic
form for assistance while making submissions to the court.
H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R.

A D. Archiving
1. The audio-visual recording of each day’s proceedings shall be
preserved in the Audio-Visual Unit of the Supreme Court
Registry;
2. Archives of all broadcasts of courtroom proceedings which
B have been live-streamed should be made available on the website
of the Supreme Court; and
3. Hard copies of the video footage of past proceedings may be
made available according to terms and conditions to be notified
by the Supreme Court Registry. The video footage shall be
C made available for the sole purpose of fair and accurate
reporting of the judicial proceedings of the Supreme Court.
E. Broadcast Room
1. The Registry will make one or more rooms or a hall available
within the premises of the Supreme Court for the purpose of
broadcasting the proceedings. Multiple screens along with the
D
other necessary infrastructural facilities shall be installed, for
enabling litigants, journalists, interns, visitors and lawyers to
view the courtroom proceedings in the broadcast room(s).
Special arrangements will be made for the differently abled.
F. Miscellaneous
E
1. The Supreme Court shall hold exclusive copyright over videos
streamed online and archived with the Registry; and
2. Re-use, capture, re-editing or redistribution, or creating
derivative works or compilingof the broadcast or video footage,
in any form, shall not be permitted except as may be notified in
F the terms and conditions of use and without the written
permission of the Registry.
I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts and
assistance rendered by Mr K K Venugopal, the learned Attorney General
for India, Ms Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel, Mr Mathews
G Nedumpara, learned Counsel and by the law student, Mr Swapnil Tripathi,
who also moved a petition under Article 32.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Writ Petitions allowed.

H