Discuss the 'open justice' principle in the context of live-streaming of court proceedings in India. Does restricting circulation of livestreamed content to official archives dilute this principle?

Open justice means justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. In Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), a three-judge Bench held live-streaming flows from the Article 21 right to access justice and Article 145(4) mandate of open-court pronouncement [1]. Restricting circulation to official archives regulates the medium, but risks narrowing this openness.

Live-streaming as an expression of open justice

• Swapnil Tripathi (2018) permitted streaming of cases of constitutional and national importance, with party consent and presiding-judge discretion [1].
• The Supreme Court e-Committee's draft Model Rules (2021) sought a "balanced regulatory framework" for transparency, inclusivity and access to justice, drafted by a sub-committee of Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka High Court judges [2].
• Openness was never absolute: the Rules exclude matrimonial, gender-based violence and child-related matters, and the Court retains copyright over recordings [3][1].

Where archive-only access dilutes the principle

• It converts a right to view into a permission to circulate — prior sanction from the Registrar General/Secretary General becomes a gatekeeping layer [4].
• Restrictions on speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be reasonable and proportionate; a blanket bar is wider than the mischief of doctored clips.
• Civil society and RTI users — who rely on unedited footage for accountability reporting — face delay and a chilling effect, the ground on which activists sought modification [4].

Where it does not

• Streaming itself continues; only extraction, editing and monetisation are curbed, and news reporting is expressly untouched [4].
• A verified archive is an authenticity safeguard against manipulated clips and protects litigant dignity, consistent with the Model Rules' exclusions [3].

The dilution is therefore one of degree, turning on design rather than principle. If the archive guarantees time-bound, low-cost, presumptive access with recorded reasons for refusal, and High Courts adopt uniform rules, regulation strengthens credibility without closing the courtroom. Sunlight, suitably channelled, remains the judiciary's best disinfectant.