Justice should not only be done, it should also be seen to be done. Analyse live-streaming of Supreme Court proceedings in the above context. (200 words)
Refer – The Hindu
Enrich the answer from other sources, if the question demands.
IAS Parliament 7 years
KEY POINTS
“Justice should not only be done, it should also be seen to be done”
It is not only necessary that legal judgments are fair and equitable: it is necessary that they must be publicly recognised as such.
· As Kautilya said in the Arthashastra, and during that time, when judges delivered a judgment, they did so in an open court to ensure transparency.
· While the Indian legal system is built on the concept of open courts, which means that the proceedings are open to all members of the public, the reality is different.
· On any given day, only a handful of people can be physically present and are allowed in the courtroom.
· For this reason, a petition had been filed in Supreme Court demanding live-streaming of Supreme Court proceedings.
Arguments in favour
· The courts are now opting for digitisation, with online records of all cases, filing FIRs online, an automated system of case rotation, etc.,
· In the light of these technological advancements, it is also imperative to allow people to watch the rich deliberations that transpire in the halls of justice.
· To promote transparency, live-streaming has been allowed for both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha proceedings since 2004.
· Similarly, the recording of videos in the highest courts in Canada and Australia, as well as in some international courts, most notably in the International Court of Justice, shows that this exercise is neither novel nor so difficult.
· Strong reasons in favour of allowing live-streaming includes –
a) Right to information
b) Access to justice
c) To build the right perception
d) To educate common people on how the judiciary functions
e) To avoid multiple versions or the menace of fake news
Arguments against
· The role of the judiciary cannot be equated with the roles of the legislature and the executive.
· In democratic governance, the public is sovereign, and the public judges its representatives.
· But the public cannot judge the judges. Judges are accountable neither to the general public nor to the sovereign.
· They are accountable only to the rule of law and to the Constitution, as established by law.
· Unwanted public gaze will tend to make judges subject to popular public opinion and accountable to the general public.
· With live-streaming, there is a strong possibility that lawyers will tend to address not only the judges but also the public watching them. This will only hamper their objectivity.
· Debates inside a courtroom, especially before Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court, require reasonable expertise to be understood.
· Lawyers and judges before the Supreme Court tend to rely extensively on an ‘oral’ culture where much less emphasis is placed on written briefs and documents or on thorough preparation in advance of hearings.
· Given these realities, it is not clear that televising the proceedings would entail any great benefit to the public, even as it runs the risk of adversely affecting court proceedings.
Alternative solutions so far recommended
· Instead of live-streaming, audio and video recordings of court proceedings would help to reform the administration of justice.
· These can be used at the time of review or appeal of a case, especially when the submissions of a lawyer are not properly recorded in the judgment, or a judge is acting in a whimsical manner.
· The Supreme Court had already directed all High courts to ensure CCTVs and audio and video recordings in subordinate courts.
· This order should be extended to the Supreme Court and High Courts, and a copy of the recordings should be made available to the parties concerned and to the general public under the Right to Information Act.
