Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai has flagged concerns that court hearings are often misinterpreted and shared without context on social media.The CJI made the observation at a roundtable discussion held at the United Kingdom Supreme Court in London.
Responding to a question on how far judges are expected to respond to media commentary on judgments, CJI Gavai noted that the media in India is very active when it comes to reporting on important court judgments. However, there are also serious concerns about the misinterpretation of court hearings with the advent of live-streaming or video conference hearings, he said.
"This issue requires a very serious debate, because in India, we have seen that after the virtual courts were started, some people - they just take out part of the court proceedings and misinterpret it."He called for rules to be put in place to curb such practices."In India, we do not have any rules to deal with that. So I think it's high time that the executive should, in India also, consider having such rules to curb the social media menace," he said.
The discussion on the theme Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence also saw the participation of Chief Justice of England and Wales Lady Sue Carr; Indian Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath and UK Supreme Court judge Lord George Leggatt. Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji moderated the event.
In India, we have seen that after the virtual courts were started, some people - they just take out part of the court proceedings and misinterpret it.During the discussion, Justice Nath said that he was a strong supporter of live-streaming of court proceedings, even if there may be flipsides to such an approach.
"The aberrations and any kind of misuse or trolling or all those things are too minimal to cut down live-streaming. And certainly the advantage of it extends not only to judges, lawyers and people in the legal field, but also to the litigants and people who are not related to the legal system at all," he added.He observed that the Supreme Court's decision to live-stream cases that are of constitutional significance has had a profound impact. The number of people watching such these videos typically runs into tens of thousands, he said. He also noted that opening up the justice delivery system this way may sometimes have humorous consequences.
"Let me share an interesting anecdote. Senior counsel Mr. Nagamuthu was arguing a matter. We allowed the counsel to present his case for 20 minutes...(and) granted him notice. He was very happy. Two weeks later, when the matter came up again, and we were about to allow the petition, he said 'wait.' I said, 'What happened Mr. Nagamuthu? We are in your favour.' He said, 'Last time, your lordship issued notice without even hearing me. My client called up and said you did not utter a word, (why should we pay the fees?)!'" he recounted.
Live-streaming of court proceedings, therefore, brings not only a new kind of trust in the system, but sometimes good humour as well, Justice Nath said.Lady Justice Carr agreed that such measures build public confidence, because the more people see what the courts do, the more they understand.However, she acknowledged that with more transparency, judges sometimes face threats to their security. She opined that it is important to introduce measures such as live-streaming or televising court proceedings slowly, to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place.
"The reason why televising has worked so well in the courts in England and Wales is because we move forward so very slowly. We have very, very good relations with the broadcasting companies, very tight contracts and we have moved very, very slowly. So, very particular parts of the proceedings can be televised at the moment. So the key, I would say, is to do it slowly. That's a safeguard...I can't ask my judges to open their arms to greater transparency without giving them proper assurance that they will be kept safe, because that is the biggest challenge," she said.
Follow us
