Livestreaming of court proceedings advances transparency but creates new risks of misuse.

Q. Livestreaming of court proceedings advances transparency but creates new risks of misuse. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Open court is not a courtesy but a constitutional value — Swapnil Tripathi (2018) located access to judicial proceedings within Article 21 and Article 145(4), paving the way for livestreaming [2]. Yet the Supreme Court's interim order of July 2026 restricting unauthorised use of hearing recordings shows that visibility alone does not guarantee accountability [1].

How livestreaming advances transparency - Access to justice: citizens, litigants in remote districts, journalists and law students can watch proceedings directly, ending dependence on second-hand accounts [2]. - Institutional accountability: real-time visibility of arguments and judicial conduct strengthens public scrutiny of both bench and bar. - Systemic adoption: Gujarat High Court pioneered livestreaming in 2020 and the Supreme Court streams Constitution Bench matters; the e-Committee's Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings created a common framework [3][4]. - Legal literacy: primary-source viewing corrects misinformation about how courts actually function.

The new risks of misuse - Decontextualised clipping: isolated excerpts circulated with clickbait captions, distorting judicial observations into verdicts [1]. - Commercial exploitation: monetised "clip-farming" on social platforms converts solemn proceedings into content revenue [1]. - Privacy and dignity: witnesses, victims and litigants in matrimonial or sensitive matters face permanent digital exposure. - Media trial: viral courtroom fragments prejudice sub judice matters and pressure adjudication. - Enforcement gap: registrars lack technical capacity to track takedowns across borderless platforms.

Balancing transparency with sanctity The Court's remedy is calibrated, not restrictive — extraction, editing, uploading or monetisation now needs permission of the Secretary General (SC) or Registrar General (High Courts), while bona fide news reporting continues unaffected [1].

Livestreaming must remain a window, not a stage. The way forward lies in uniform adoption of the Model Rules, official archives with authenticated transcripts, exclusion of sensitive case categories, and structured coordination with digital platforms for swift takedown. Regulated openness — not retreat from it — best serves both the citizen's right to know under Article 19(1)(a) and the dignity of the judicial process.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. Record of Proceedings, Harshita Grover v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 751/2026, Supreme Court of India (July 2026) — interim bar on extraction, dissemination and monetisation of hearing recordings; permission authorities; news-reporting exemption 2. Live Streaming — Supreme Court of India (official section) — constitutional basis in Swapnil Tripathi (2018), Articles 21 and 145(4), and rollout of livestreamed proceedings 3. Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings — e-Committee, Supreme Court of India — common rule framework for courts 4. PIB: e-Committee releases Draft Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings (2021) — stakeholder consultation and privacy/confidentiality safeguards