Live streaming of SC proceedings should be done in constitutional and socially important matters:CJI

New Delhi, Aug 3: The Supreme Court has observed that live streaming of proceedings could be done for constitutional matters. The court is hearing a petition that sought for live streaming of judicial proceedings.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra said that live streaming of SC proceedings could be done for constitutional matters and social matters with constitutional importance.

Further hearing on the matter would resume on August 17. The Centre was asked by the court to file guidelines in two weeks. The petitioners too were asked to submit their suggestions to the Attorney General, K K Venugopal.

On the earlier date of hearing, the Centre had said that it supported live-streaming of court proceedings in the Supreme Court. It should start with the court of the Chief Justice, Venugopal said.

He further said that the government is in favour of the idea and that modalities could be devised to suit the needs. It can be done on a pilot basis and should begin in the CJI's court, he also added.

He further said that live streaming should first be confined only to matters heard by the Constitution Bench. These matters are of great interest to lawyers, law interns and others. There could be screens installed in the court premises as well to enable lawyers and law interns to watch.

The petitioner in the case, Indira Jaisingh said that certain safeguards need to be in place so that the clips are not commercially exploited or misused.

The Supreme Court has sought the assistance of the Attorney General of India on a petition that seeks live streaming of proceedings of the Constitution Bench in cases having national importance.

In her petition, Jaisingh said that the norm world over was to allow proceedings to be recorded. She further added that some judges on the Constitution Benches were reluctant about this as it would capture every sentence in the banter between judges and advocates which were merely a way to elicit responses and not a sign of how the judge would finally decide the case.

She however added that there were different methods to resolve such reluctance and also listed the methods that courts globally had adopted. Some courts allow publication after a gap of 30 minutes, some ban recording of proceedings only in trial courts as that would compromise witnesses, some give edited versions of the proceedings, some record the proceedings but do not air it in public, some give out transcripts of proceedings, she also said in her petition.