Supreme Court's Live Streaming Rules

The Supreme Court’s e-Committee released Draft Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings on May 28, 2021 (the Draft Rules) and sought public comments on the draft until June 30, 2021. This is a huge step for transparency in the judicial process, and will bring much greater accessibility regarding the higher judiciary for the ordinary public. This has been made possible by the advocacy of Ms. Indira Jaisingh and her team, particularly in the matter of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India and others.

We have welcomed the changes proposed to be brought about by the Draft Document and are in strong support of the move to live stream legal proceedings. We have also offered minor amendments in the Draft Document to improve the balance between privacy and the public interest, though we are cognisant that the Draft Document has made a clear and mindful attempt to strike such a balance. Our comments are available here: 28.06.21 - Comments to Live Streaming Rules.pdf - Google Drive

We believe that in a democracy, it is the civic duty of each and every individual to strengthen our democracy by encouraging and participating in consultative processes. We encourage you to share your comments to the Draft Live-Streaming Rules with us here and tell us what you think, and also to independently offer your comments and suggestions to the e-Committee via email at [email protected]


Interesting remarks about this from the Supreme Court in a hearing today. A junior counsel told the bench that the arguing counsel is indisposed, and when the bench asked her to proceed with the case, she said that she is not equipped to assist the court. When the bench asked for the AOR, the junior advocate replied that even the AOR would be unable to argue the matter immediately.

The following remarks were then made (read more at LiveLaw - 'Live-Streaming Only Answer To Adjournment-Seeking Antics, So Society At Large Can See The Cause Of Pendency': Justice Chandrachud)

  • “The lawyers misuse their juniors- juniors who are not ready, juniors who don’t have briefs, juniors who don’t want to argue! Then the court is helpless and its only option is to do injustice, by disposing off the matter by hearing only one side, which the Court does not want to do. So it is all a part of the game which is played to get adjournments! They play on the court’s sense of justice to get adjournments!” - Justice Chandrachud.

  • “The only answer is to live-stream cases so that the society at large can see who is taking time and why matters keep getting adjourned. Judges are here from 10:30 to 4. We have been saying since the morning that we will not adjourn any matter, and yet, adjournments are being sought repeatedly- for personal difficulty, for this reason, for that reason” - Justice Chandrachud.

  • “Who is to blame for the delay in disposing of matters? Only the court? Not the advocates? It is the advocates who seek the adjournments!” - Justice Shah.

So what do you think? Advocates to blame for delay? Will the problem be solved by providing for live streaming?

My answer to both questions is “To an extent, certainly”. Let me know what you think