India’s legal landscape has undergone a transformative shift with the introduction of live-streaming in courtrooms. This forward-thinking move seeks to promote transparency and enable public access to judicial proceedings. However, the case of Dr. Vijay Bajaj vs. Union of India has brought attention to the potential downsides of this openness, highlighting the urgent need for regulatory measures to address emerging challenges.
Case Overview
Dr. Vijay Bajaj’s petition draws attention to the widespread misuse of live-streamed court proceedings on social media platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook. Unauthorised individuals and groups have been editing, morphing, and monetising these videos by creating content such as “memes,” “reels,” and “shorts.” This not only misrepresents the judiciary but also undermines its dignity and credibility.
Key Reliefs Sought:
1. An immediate prohibition on the unauthorised usage, editing, and sharing of live-streamed court videos.
2. Removal of existing unauthorised content and legal action against those involved.
3. Recovery of profits made by violators from such misuse.
4. Implementation of monitoring systems at centralised and district levels.
5. Introduction of a time delay in live-streaming to prevent manipulation.
Intersection with Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018 SCC OnLine SC 1667)
The foundation of live-streaming in courtrooms was laid by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India. This decision endorsed live-streaming of cases with constitutional significance, emphasising principles such as:
Access to Justice: Open court hearings enhance public confidence in the judiciary by ensuring justice is both done and perceived to be done.
Controlled Access: Strict guidelines are essential to prevent misuse of live-streamed content.
Integrity of Proceedings: Judicial decorum and dignity must be upheld in all live-streamed material.
Educational Intent: The primary purpose of live-streaming is to educate and inform the public rather than entertain or generate profit.
While Swapnil Tripathi’s case promoted transparency, Dr. Vijay Bajaj’s petition underscores the unintended consequences of live-streaming, revealing gaps in enforceme nt mechanisms and protections.
Regulatory Frameworks Governing Live-Streaming
The petition is anchored in various legal and regulatory provisions designed to regulate the use of live-streamed court proceedings:
1. Madhya Pradesh Live-Streaming and Recording Rules, 2021
- Grants exclusive copyright of live-streamed videos to the judiciary.
- Restricts unauthorised recording, sharing, or reproduction of content.
- Provides penalties for violations under copyright and information technology laws.
2. Copyright Act, 1957
- Protects original content, including court recordings, from unauthorised reproduction under Section 51.
- Imposes civil and criminal liabilities on violators.
3. Information Technology Act, 2000
Penalises the dissemination of defamatory or obscene content, including manipulated judicial recordings, under Sections 66A and 67.
4. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Prohibits the publication of misleading or distorted court proceedings to uphold judicial integrity.
Challenges Highlighted
1. Lack of Awareness: Many social media users are unaware of the restrictions on using live-streamed court content, leading to widespread unauthorised use.
2. Commercial Exploitation: Videos are edited and shared with sensational captions, primarily to attract online engagement and generate advertising revenue.
3. Threat to Judicial Credibility: Distorted representations of court proceedings erode public trust in the judiciary and its impartiality.
4. Weak Enforcement: The absence of real-time monitoring and effective enforcement mechanisms allows continued misuse of judicial content.
Recommendations and Solutions
The petition provides a roadmap to mitigate these issues and safeguard judicial transparency:
1. Monitoring Mechanisms:
- Establish centralised and district-level monitoring centres to oversee live-streaming.
- Enable these centres to issue immediate takedown notices and take legal action against violators.
2. Time-Lag in Live-Streaming:
Introduce a 20-minute delay in broadcasts to filter inappropriate or sensitive content before public release.
3. Stricter Penalties:
- Impose heavier penalties under the Copyright Act and IT Act to deter unauthorised use.
- Recover profits earned by individuals or entities through unauthorised monetisation.
- Public Awareness Campaigns:
- Launch initiatives to educate the public about ethical and legal constraints on using live-streamed court proceedings.
- Collaborate with social media platforms to improve reporting mechanisms and raise awareness.
Broader Implications
This case reflects a pivotal moment in the evolution of judicial transparency in India. While live-streaming strengthens democratic principles by improving public access to justice, it also exposes the judiciary to risks of exploitation and manipulation. Implementing the solutions proposed in Dr. Bajaj’s petition would help maintain the delicate balance between openness and decorum in judicial proceedings.
Judicial Innovation in the Digital Era:
The integration of technology into judicial processes offers opportunities to promote accessibility and reinforce the public’s faith in the legal system. However, it also underscores the importance of safeguarding the judiciary’s sanctity through well-regulated frameworks.
Conclusion
The interplay between Swapnil Tripathi and Dr. Vijay Bajaj underscores the dual challenges and opportunities of judicial transparency in the digital era. While the Supreme Court’s progressive stance on live-streaming strengthens accessibility, it must be accompanied by stringent safeguards to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. Dr. Bajaj’s case serves as a call to action for stronger regulations and enforcement, ensuring that live-streaming continues to empower citizens without compromising the solemnity and authority of the courts.