Post COVID-19 pandemic, Indian
Judiciary had begun online streaming of courtroom proceedings. The Supreme
Court of India was the first one to allow online streaming of constitutional
matters in bid to improve transparency of the courtroom, later many High Courts
adopted the same model. The motive of Indian Judiciary was dual, first, they
wanted to improve the transparency in proceedings and second, they wanted to
impart legal awareness among the masses. One can say that they have
succeeded in doing so, as of now, the official YouTube channel of the Supreme Court of India
has around 1.68Lakh subscribers and more than 52Lakh views and similarly
official YouTube channels of different High Courts also have subscriber and
views count in lakhs. It is often said that the internet is a dual edged
sword, it has the potential to make or destroy one’s reputation in matter of
hours, and even the Judiciary is unable to protect itself.
 |
| The Supreme Court of India |
Recently, the Chief Justice of
India DY Chandrachud was trolled on the internet by circulating a doctored
video. The video was captioned as, CJI left the courtroom hearing in between
when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was arguing on electoral bond, whereas in
reality he was adjusting his chair. Similarly, multiple videos of Justice Rohit
Arya and Justice Vivek Agarwal from High Court of Madhya Pradesh are
circulating online in which their conduct is strict, these videos manifest an
idea that justice can be only achieved if judges are strict, whereas in reality
every case has its own nuances and judges’ approach is based upon it. In these
videos, judges are observed questioning the bar intensely, but usually the
motive behind asking such questions is to understand certain facts in more
detail. When such video clips are posted online without contextual background
of the case, the viewers get a distorted idea of courtroom proceedings.
 |
| Example of Over-Dramatic Caption on YouTube Video of Judicial Proceeding in Madhya Pradesh High Court |
The courtroom proceedings are
usually long which might range to multiple days, but many unauthorised channels
take cut out sections from the video of these proceedings and give them an
overdramatic caption to garner views on video streaming platforms and social
media platforms which hampers the public image of judicial proceedings.
Problems associated with tailored videos present on video streaming platforms: -
- Eroding Public trust : In various cases, the state is a party, and sometimes procedural lapses do happen by a public servant in-charge, as a result they are thoroughly disciplined by the bench and sometimes even punished according to provisions of the law. It is worth noting that when these tailored videos are circulated on streaming platforms, the viewer gets a generalized idea that a public servant is always negligent and irresponsible, whereas in reality it is not always true.
- Political/Ideological leaning is
determined :
- Video clips used as monetary source : Streaming of judicial proceedings are originally posted on verified channels, but since these videos are in public domain, they can be downloaded and re-uploaded on various social media sites with infuriating captions added by the uploader, which helps the video to gain traction and ultimately get monetized. Its important to note that, these online streaming videos of judicial proceedings are official records of court proceedings, they can’t be tailored and used by a private citizen to earn money. It is evident that there is no regulating body to look after this issue, so intent of streaming these videos i.e. to increase transparency and legal awareness is lost when these videos are tailored and uploaded to garner views and enable monetisation of private social media accounts.
If so, is the streaming of judicial proceedings a bad idea?
Clearly the answer is NO. The
issue is, since there are no adequate mechanisms to regulate these tailored
videos, few delinquent individuals are using them to create a sensational video
which can garner views and likes which are ultimately used to earn money.
What are the possible remedies to deal with these issues?
- Allowing only verified accounts to post videos of judicial proceedings. Currently official channels of the Supreme Court of India and various High Court are live streaming the proceedings, these channels are managed under directions of the e-committee of Supreme Court, they can rope in the digital media industry experts who can help the courts to use copy right tools of video streaming platforms effectively.
- Instructing the video streaming platform and social media platforms to demonetise all the videos released by judiciary, this might limit the reach of these videos but sensationalization of judicial proceedings can be prevented, thus disincentivizing those who want to earn quick money by posting overdramatic captioned videos of judicial proceedings.
- Taking action under provision 9 of Model rules for live streaming and recording of court proceedings issued by Supreme Court of India in 2022. Though there are many channels who violate these guidelines, a symbolic action can be taken against few by court, thus creating a deterrent effect.
Conclusion
To summarise, the initial motive of the judiciary behind live streaming was to increase public knowledge and foster transparency, but the data from Socialblade.com (a public database which provides analytics of YouTube channels) clearly indicates that videos of judicial proceedings are used by many unauthorised accounts to earn money. The issue of unauthorised monetisation of official records of court proceedings can be easily dealt with by force of law, but the tarnishing of the public image of the judiciary and law enforcement agency can’t be reversed. These unauthorised accounts posting sensational videos to earn quick money should be stopped as soon as possible to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
