Infrastructure installation underway, SC told

NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court has initiated the process of installing the infrastructure required for live streaming of its proceedings, the secretary general of the Supreme Court submitted before a bench comprising justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and MR Shah on Tuesday.

The submissions were made on a plea by senior advocate Indira Jaising seeking implementation of the top court’s directions in a September 2018 judgment relating to live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings.

The court, however, declined to entertain the plea, saying it will not pass any judicial order, and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for action on the administrative side. The court, in its September 2018 judgment, held that cases of national importance which are heard by a Constitution bench, can be streamed live as a pilot project and also suggested that Supreme Court rules be amended in order to provide for a regulatory framework to govern live streaming.

Though more than a year has passed since the judgment, neither was rules framed nor was the pilot project implemented.

Jaising, who was one of the petitioners in the case, then filed an application praying that rules be framed to enable and regulate live streaming, as laid down in the 2018 judgment. The court issued notice to the secretary general on January 31. On Tuesday, justice Mishra expressed his inclination to turn down the plea, stating that the matter should be best left to the discretion of the CJI. “Should we pass a judicial order or should we leave it to the discretion of the CJI on a case-tocase basis.”

“I am not asking for a direction to implement the judgment. The 2018 judgment directed the Supreme Court to frame rules. My limited prayer is to order Supreme Court to frame rules in accordance with the 2018 judgment”, said Jaising.

Justice Mishra said rules will be required only if the pilot project succeeds. He, therefore, suggested that the desirable course of action would be for Jaising to file an application for live streaming of individual Constitution bench cases as and when they come up for hearing. Jaising, however, said that such constitution benches will cite absence of rules to turn down such a plea.

Attorney general KK Venugopal, whose suggestions on live streaming, were accepted by the court in its 2018 judgment, said that the top court should consider framing rules now so that the judgment can be implemented. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court had started installing the infrastructure required for live streaming.

“I would request Your Lordships to start drafting the rules so that there is certainty on what needs to be done”, said the AG.

Justice Mishra, however, said the 2018 judgment only has an advisory value and was not binding on the administrative side of the court. “There cannot be a direction to the administrative side (of Supreme Court) to frame rules. We cannot command the court to legislate,” justice Mishra asked. Eventually, he said he will order that the matter be placed before the CJI on the administrative side. In its 2018 judgment, SC said a specified category of cases or cases of constitutional and national importance being argued for final hearing before a Constitution bench can be live streamed as a pilot project. However, it came with the rider that prior consent of all the parties to the concerned proceedings must be insisted upon.

“The entire idea of live streaming having come from a judgment of the Supreme Court itself, there is no reason why the it cannot pass a judicial order to the administrative side of the court (to frame rules). It has to be distinguished from legislating... the court has not circumscribed itself from passing directions when it comes to gaps in laws –the Vishaka case is a good example. One advantage if the SC starts live streaming is that overcrowding of courts by interns, lawyers etc who come to watch constitution bench matters will reduce”, SC advocate Amit Pai told HT.

THE COURT DECLINED TO PASS ANY JUDICIAL ORDER, AND DIRECTED THAT THE MATTER BE PLACED BEFORE THE CJI