'Let The Matter Be Considered By The CJI On Administrative Side": SC On 'Application For Framing 'Live-Streaming Rules [Courtroom Exchange]

A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra on Tuesday took up the application filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising for a direction to the Supreme Court in the administrative side to frame rules under Article 145(1) for live-streaming of matters of national importance."This judgment speaks of live streaming of hearings of public importance, particularly those before a Constitution bench, as per the guidelines laid down in the judgment. The Attorney General has also submitted his guidelines, which were found acceptable by the court...", began Senior Counsel and petitioner-in-person Indira Jaising."Should we do this by a judicial order or should we leave it to be dealt with on the administrative side? Now, after this judgment, there is a provision for it, the law is there for it...it should be the Chief Justice's discretion...", observed Justice Arun Mishra."I am not asking for a mandamus. My prayers are very calibrative...", Ms. Jaising sought to submit."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 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 or witnesses"., she read from the September, 2018 judgment, drawing the bench's attention to the guidelines in the judgment which themselves carry the safeguards."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...", she quoted from the then CJ Dipak Misra and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar's judgment."But there is some problem. It says 'For that, permission of the concerned Court will have to be sought in writing, in advance, in conformity with the prescribed procedure'...", pointed out Justice Mishra."What do you want from us, Madam?", he asked."The judgment is of September 26, 2018. It has been over a year. My limited prayer is for the matters that go before the constitution bench to begin with...All the three judges (CJ Misra, Justice Khanwilkar and Justice D. Y. Chandrachud) agreed with the proposition that live-streaming is a part of right of access to justice and open justice, hearing in open court! Everybody, whether they are present in court or not, has the right to observe!", urged Ms. Jaising."If the pilot project fails, there is no point of framing any rules. Then everything goes! Then there is no occasion for framing any rules, if it is found that we don't have the discipline for this direct streaming of arguments...That stage comes only if it succeeds...", observed Justice Mishra. "A pilot project helps to improve the system! That is the point of a pilot project!", replied Ms. Jaising."You can file a IA in any case where there is a hearing before a constitution bench. Like there is a 9-judge bench, you can file an application before that bench...where is the room for us to direct anything?", ventured Justice Mishra."This would be a chicken-and-egg problem! They would say unless this exercise is done, we can't direct anything! These kind of applications have been filed by certain persons!", replied Ms. Jaising."The court considers these to be model guidelines. They have to be translated into actual guidelines", she continued, adding that the judgment notes that; "The model guidelines are of a suggested nature and will not detract from the authority of the Court to frame Rules...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".When it was suggested that the judgment speaks of experimentation, Ms. Jaising argued, "Ultimately, it is the discretion of the court. I can't deny that. But what is at discretion is the guidelines! like matrimonial cases cannot be live-streamed because the law requires them to be held in-camera!""Why don't you write to the CJ?", asked Justice Mishra. "I have on several occasions written to the Secretary General of this court. At the last hearing, notice was issued to him and he was required to be present in person today", replied Ms. Jaising."There was a long debate before this court which culminated into this judgment. What has to be followed and what has to be eschewed has been set out- sensitive cases, matrimonial matters, terrorist matters. The judgment is complete as to the modalities. But the final call has to be taken on the administrative side to frame the...

'Let The Matter Be Considered By The CJI On Administrative Side": SC On 'Application For Framing 'Live-Streaming Rules [Courtroom Exchange]

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

MEHAL JAIN

'Let The Matter Be Considered By The CJI On Administrative Side": SC On 'Application For Framing 'Live-Streaming Rules [Courtroom Exchange]

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers