By Yash Budhwar
The Supreme Court gave a go-ahead for the audio and video recording of proceedings in courtrooms, saying that judges do not require privacy in the court. Justice AK Goel, who presided over the matter along with Justice UU Lalit, dismissed concerns that such a move would infringe upon the privacy of judicial minds. He said, “There is no privacy in a court, we are sitting here for all.”
Courtrooms for the public
There have been two rulings in this regard, the details of which will provide some perspective on the statements made by Justice AK Goel.
On March 28th of this year, the Supreme Court had ordered all 24 high courts within the country to install CCTV cameras within the courtrooms, without audio recording, of a minimum of two districts in each state and union territory. The bench entrusted the high court concerned with overseeing the installation of cameras and their working. The District and Sessions Judges, who are the administrative heads of courts in a particular district, were asked to monitor the courtroom recordings in their chambers. The CCTV footage was to be available only in the judge’s chambers, leaving it to the discretion of the judge to make it publicly available or not. This ruling was applicable to only the constitutional courts – the Supreme Court and High Courts, and not those of the tribunal kind. The apex court, however, made it clear that the footage of the CCTV camera recording will not be made available under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and not supplied to anyone without the permission of the concerned court judge.
Revised rulings
Regarding the second ruling which was declared on August 14th, the Supreme Court expanded the reach of the ruling they had made in March. They directed the installation of CCTV cameras, this time with the audio recording of all court proceedings available as well, in the constitutional courts as well as those of the tribunals. The choice of where to install the cameras within the courtrooms was, as previously ruled, left to the respective court judge in question. The bench based these rulings upon the fact that courts in other countries allow for the audio and video recording of their proceedings.
India is following suit
In the UK, courts began to allow photography and filming in the early 21st century. The Supreme Court has permitted filming since 2009 while the Court of Appeal, the court which is second only to the Supreme Court, has allowed it on a regular basis since 2013. Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 outlaws the taking of photographs, the making of sketches, and the filming of courtroom proceedings in all the other courts of England and Wales, however.
In the US, the Judicial Conference of the United States is the body responsible for the framing of policy guidelines related to the administration of judicial proceedings. In 2010, the Conference permitted the video recording and audio recording of 14 district courtroom proceedings, and the publication of such recordings, as a 3-year pilot project. The presiding judge, along with all the parties to the particular case in question, had to provide their consent before such recordings were permitted. Additionally, such recordings were only allowed for civil cases.
Right to privacy
Thus, in other countries as well, there are laws in place which permit the audio and video recordings of courtroom proceedings. The first point that should be considered now is whether or not the specific individuals involved in a case are given the right to decide for themselves whether such recording impinges on their right to privacy. Such a view is of utmost significance because if this were not so, then, by principle, the judge in question is deciding on the issues of privacy of other individuals.
A judge administering justice by giving their verdict on a case is not the same as that same judge deciding on privacy impingement. The first instance is allowed because the judge is assumed to be the most knowledgeable and skilled with regard to administering justice according to prescribed laws. The second instance is the individual themselves and not the judge. As long as the judge takes counsel with the specific individuals in question, the privacy of everyone concerned would be adhered to.
Public nature of the judiciary
Now the question comes down to whether or not courtrooms should be public places. As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada, public access to courts guarantees the integrity of the judicial processes by displaying that justice is administered in a non-arbitrary manner. The openness of the courts is also essential to maintain the view that courts are impartial in their administering of justice. The maintenance of such perceptions upholds the confidence of the public in the judiciary system which is required for the public to abide by the law and by the decisions of the court. People might argue that video and audio recordings of courtroom proceedings might lead to them being trivialised.
However, such a view is only held due to the number of TV programs that sensationalise the proceedings of a courtroom. Authentic and live video feeds of courtroom proceedings will dispel such notions and educate the public at large about the judiciary and its processes. The openness of courts is also needed to maintain the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. Hence, any prevention by a court to the accessibility of the proceedings within a courtroom must be evaluated carefully and stringently.
New laws for a new age
Having now ascertained the importance of the ability of the public to access the proceedings of a court, the only question that remains is whether video and audio recordings of these proceedings retain the same functions and importance as a public trial. First, access to video and audio recordings of courtroom proceedings is not the same as the court being open for the public to enter. For one, such recordings are available to the media, can be disseminated at large in very small amounts of time. Thus they are open to more public scrutiny than a customary public trial. The media and the public in such an instance are placed in a precarious position. While any limitation on the media’s propagation of their reporting is a blatant violation of the freedom of speech, such reporting might result in reactions from the public. In such an instance, it should be the duty of the public to abstain from causing any harm to the individuals of a case.
Another aspect to take into consideration is the facet of social media and technology. Such technologies lead to the rapid propagation of news. Again, it is the duty of the receiver of the news, in whichever medium, to abstain from reacting in a harmful way to the proceedings of a court. Courtroom trials were made public for a reason. Accordingly, appropriate processes were put in place that ensured the proper conduction of courtroom proceedings keeping in mind these changes. In today’s age of technology and digital dissemination of news, different processes would have to be put in place but nevertheless, proceedings in courtrooms should be made accessible to all.
Featured Image Source: Pixabay
Stay updated with all the insights.
Navigate news, 1 email day.
Subscribe to Qrius