Trace the evolution of live-streaming of court proceedings in India since 2018 and evaluate the adequacy of the Model Rules for Live-Streaming (2021).

Open justice means justice must be seen to be done. In Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), the Court held that access to live proceedings flows from the right to justice and free speech under Article 19(1)(a) [3]. Eight years on, streaming has spread widely, but its regulatory frame remains a model draft rather than binding law.

Evolution since 2018

• 2018 — judicial opening: Swapnil Tripathi permitted live-streaming of cases of constitutional and national importance, subject to consent of parties, presiding judge's discretion and a time delay for editing sensitive content [3].
• 2021 — rule-making: the Supreme Court's e-Committee released draft Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording, framed by a sub-committee of Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka High Court judges, and invited public comment [1].
• 2022 onwards — institutionalisation: Model Rules were placed on record by the e-Committee for adoption by High Courts, and Constitution Bench hearings began being streamed [2].
• 2026 — regulating reuse: an interim order restrained extraction, editing, reposting or monetisation of hearing recordings without permission of the Secretary General/Registrar General, while protecting fair and accurate news reporting; an archive-based access protocol has been mooted [4].

Evaluating the Model Rules

• Strengths: they widen access for citizens, journalists and students beyond geographical limits [1]; they carve out matrimonial, sexual-offence and child-related matters to protect privacy, and retain judicial control over streaming [2].
• Inadequacies: being model rules, they bind no one until each High Court adopts them, producing uneven practice; they largely regulate broadcast, not downstream circulation — the gap the 2026 order had to fill [4]; archival access, copyright and enforcement against platforms are thinly addressed; and infrastructure and the digital divide limit reach.

Live-streaming has moved from judicial permission to administrative practice, but its rulebook has not kept pace with the digital ecosystem it created. Statutorily backed, uniformly adopted rules — with a transparent, time-bound archive-access mechanism — would secure both institutional dignity and the citizen's right to know.