Trace the evolution of court livestreaming in India from *Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India* (2018) to the present, and evaluate the adequacy of existing safeguards against misuse.

Open justice is a constitutional value, and in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) the Supreme Court held that the right of access to justice under Article 21 extends to witnessing live court proceedings [1]. Eight years on, the transparency this unlocked has outpaced the safeguards built around it.

Evolution of livestreaming

• 2018 — foundational verdict: The Court permitted livestreaming of cases of constitutional and national importance, with judicial discretion, party consent, broadcast delay and court-retained copyright [1].
• 2020 — first mover: The Gujarat High Court became the first Indian court to livestream proceedings on YouTube, on an experimental basis [2].
• 2021–22 — rule-making: The Supreme Court's e-Committee framed Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings for High Courts and tribunals, excluding matrimonial, sexual-offence and gender-violence matters and barring unauthorised recording or dissemination [3].
• 2022 onward — mainstreaming: The Supreme Court began livestreaming Constitution Bench hearings, and most High Courts followed.
• 2026 — course correction: On a PIL, an interim order restrained extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, uploading or reposting of court recordings without permission of the Secretary General (SC) or Registrar General (HC), while expressly protecting bona fide news reporting [4].

Adequacy of safeguards

• Strengths: layered protection — exclusion of sensitive categories, consent and delay mechanisms, and in-house registrar-led oversight that avoids executive control over judicial content [1][3][4].
• Gaps: the Model Rules are advisory and unevenly adopted; enforcement across borderless platforms is beyond registrars' capacity; the 2026 direction is interim, leaving final contours unsettled [4]; clip-based virality and clickbait monetisation had already spread before regulation arrived.

The trajectory shows India expanding transparency faster than it built accountability around it. A statutory-backed, uniformly notified livestreaming framework, coupled with platform-level takedown coordination and an archived official repository of authentic recordings, would let open courts serve the citizen's right to know without diluting the dignity that Article 21's promise of justice rests upon.