"Transparency without safeguards can undermine institutional credibility." Analyse in the context of judicial live-streaming.

In Swapnil Tripathi (2018), the Supreme Court linked live-streaming to the right of access to justice under Article 21 [1]. In October 2026 it reaffirmed a bar on the unauthorised circulation and commercial exploitation of streamed hearings [2]. The Court was recognising that openness without safeguards can damage the trust it is meant to build.

Transparency as a source of credibility

• Open justice: citizens see how judges reason, not just the verdicts, which discourages arbitrary decisions.
• Access: the e-Committee said streaming would bring transparency, inclusivity and access to justice [3].

How transparency without safeguards hurts

• Distortion: clips cut short or given misleading captions can make a judge's passing questions look like rulings.
• Commercialisation: monetised reuploads turn a public good into private profit, which was the Court's main objection [2].
• Privacy: once a clip from a sensitive dispute goes viral, it cannot be pulled back.
• Performance: fear of going viral may push lawyers to grandstand and make judges less willing to ask frank questions.

Safeguards and their limits

• The Model Rules give courts exclusive copyright over recordings. They punish misuse under the Copyright Act, 1957, the IT Act, 2000 and contempt law. They also add a ten-minute delay, mask personal data and keep matrimonial, sexual-offence and POCSO cases off the stream [4].
• Recordings may be used unedited for news and education, but never for commercial purposes [4].
• Going too far is also a risk: a blanket prior-permission rule strains Article 19(1)(a). This is why CJI Surya Kant made clear that the order does not stop anyone watching or reporting [2]. UK and US courts likewise stream widely but bar commercial reuse [2].

Way forward

• Give permission by category, not case by case. Allow reporting and teaching, and bar monetised edits or edits that change the meaning.
• Keep a timestamped official archive, so anyone can check a viral clip against the full record.
• Finalise the revised rules through public consultation, as the e-Committee did in 2021 [3].

Live-streaming is valuable only if what the public sees is accurate, not merely visible. Safeguards aimed at distortion and profiteering, rather than at public scrutiny, will let transparency build public faith in the judiciary. This serves Article 21's promise of accessible justice and SDG 16's goal of accountable institutions.