Supreme Court allows transparency activists to intervene in live-streaming case

By A Representative 

The Supreme Court of India has allowed an intervention application filed by transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri in an ongoing matter concerning the live-streaming of court proceedings and the regulation of recording, extraction, and dissemination of audio-visual recordings of judicial proceedings.

The matter, Harshita Grover v. Union of India & Ors. (Item No. 21, Court No. 1), was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan. The intervenors were represented by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, along with advocates Cheryl D'Souza and Alice Raj.

During the hearing, Bhushan submitted that the Supreme Court should maintain an official archive of live-streamed proceedings and audio-video recordings of court hearings. Responding to the submission, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the Court would consider framing appropriate guidelines and invited the applicants to submit their suggestions.

According to the intervention application, the issues raised in the case have significant implications for the constitutional principles of open justice, freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), the right to information, press freedom, access to justice, and transparency in the administration of justice.

The applicants argue that concerns regarding the intentional misuse or misrepresentation of court proceedings can be addressed more effectively by providing authorised live-streams and official audio-video recordings, coupled with clearly defined conditions governing their reuse, extraction, sharing, and dissemination. They contend that such an approach would better safeguard fair and accurate representation of proceedings that are already open to public view than imposing blanket restrictions or limiting exemptions solely to recognised news organisations.

The intervention also challenges the Supreme Court's interim direction requiring prior permission from the Secretary General or the Registrar General before any extraction, dissemination, or reposting of recordings of court proceedings. It argues that such a requirement transforms a right flowing from the openness of court proceedings into one dependent on administrative discretion, thereby imposing an overbroad and unreasonable restriction on the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), including the right to information.

Further, the applicants contend that the emergence of digital and social media has blurred the traditional distinction between journalists and ordinary citizens. They argue that granting dissemination privileges exclusively to traditional media organisations while restricting individual citizens would be inconsistent with contemporary media realities and the constitutional principle of open justice.

Through the intervention, Bhardwaj and Johri have sought to assist the Supreme Court in evolving an appropriate framework governing the live-streaming, recording, and dissemination of judicial proceedings while preserving transparency and protecting against misuse.