"Live-streaming of court proceedings advances open justice but creates new risks in the age of social media." Discuss.

In Swapnil Tripathi (2018), the Supreme Court backed live-streaming as a step towards courtroom transparency [1]. The e-Committee later held that the right of access to justice under Article 21 includes access to live proceedings [2]. Yet the SC's October 2026 bar on unauthorised circulation of streamed hearings shows that openness now needs safeguards [3].

How live-streaming advances open justice

• Transparency: the Model Rules aim to "imbue greater transparency, inclusivity and foster access to justice" [4]. Public scrutiny of arguments builds trust.
• Inclusive access: litigants far from court can follow their cases. Uploaded recordings must be made accessible to differently-abled persons [4].
• Legal literacy: authorised recordings may be used for news, training and academic purposes [4].
• Reliable record: archived recordings stored with hash values help check misreporting [4].

New risks in the social-media age

• Distortion: edited clips with misleading captions misrepresent judges and erode trust in institutions [3].
• Commercial exploitation: monetised re-uploads turn a public good into private profit. The SC held that such content "cannot be exploited" [3].
• Privacy: viral clips expose litigants. The Rules therefore exclude matrimonial, sexual-offence and POCSO matters and mute personal data [4].
• Weak enforcement: unauthorised use is punishable under the Copyright Act, 1957, the IT Act, 2000 and contempt law [4]. However, takedowns usually come only after a clip has gone viral.
• Free-speech tension: an over-broad bar may chill commentary. CJI Surya Kant clarified that it is no gag on viewing or reporting [3].

Way forward

• Regulate by purpose: allow unedited news and teaching use, and bar commercial use and edits, as the Rules already envisage [4].
• Follow UK and US practice: round-the-clock access with strict anti-commercialisation norms [3].
• Revise consultatively: seek public comments, as the e-Committee did in 2021 [2].

Live-streaming has carried courtrooms to public screens. The task now is to shield that openness from distortion and profiteering. A purpose-based, consultative framework of "access yes, exploitation no" would balance Article 19(1)(a) freedoms with judicial dignity and privacy. It would keep open justice true to the Article 21 promise of access to justice.