"Live streaming of court proceedings strengthens open justice but creates new risks of misuse." Discuss, with reference to recent Supreme Court directions.

Open justice means that justice must be seen to be done. It took a digital form after the Supreme Court backed live streaming in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) [2]. In October 2026 the Court directed MeitY to curb misuse of court feeds [1]. That direction shows transparency now needs safeguards to go with it.

How live streaming strengthens open justice

• Access to justice: citizens far from courtrooms can watch hearings. The Model Rules also provide dedicated viewing rooms to decongest courts [2].
• Accountability: the conduct of judges and lawyers becomes visible to the public, which builds trust in the institution.
• Legal literacy: hearings on constitutional questions educate students and citizens.
• In-built safeguards: the e-Committee's Model Rules exclude matrimonial, sexual-offence and child-related cases [2]. They also vest copyright in the court [3].

New risks of misuse

• Commercial exploitation: channels monetise clips and turn justice into spectacle [1].
• Decontextualisation: a genuine clip of a judge's remark, cut away from the argument around it, can still mislead viewers.
• Deepfakes: AI-manipulated footage damages the dignity of the court [1].
• Privacy: litigants and witnesses face trolling.
• Enforcement gap: the Model Rules already bar unauthorised recording and sharing [3]. However, contempt action taken one case at a time cannot keep pace with viral spread.

Recent Supreme Court directions

• The Court banned unauthorised use and circulation of live-streamed proceedings on digital platforms, but it did not stop live streaming itself [1].
• On 30 October 2026, a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant directed MeitY to frame measures based on inputs from High Courts. Action against non-compliance is to be part of the policy [1].
• A verifiable digital signature or watermark on official clips was proposed to separate genuine footage from fakes [1].
• MeitY can build on the February 2026 IT Rules amendment, which requires platforms to label AI-generated content and embed provenance data [4].

Live streaming and its regulation serve the same goal: public trust in the judiciary. A regime based on purpose would ban monetisation while allowing news, education and fair comment. Backed by watermarking, quick takedowns and a simple appeal route, it would balance Article 19(1)(a) with the dignity of courts. Calibrated openness of this kind keeps the constitutional promise of justice that is both done and seen to be done.