Former Congress Union Minister and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal recently appealed to the Supreme Court to cease live-streaming of proceedings of the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) court on YouTube. The senior lawyer cited concerns about his reputation, during the ongoing case in the rape-murder of a junior doctor at the RG Kar Medical Hospital before top court. “What happens is if you live-stream such matters which have emotive implications….? If something is said by your lordships…? We have a reputation!” Sibal submitted this week.
On August 20, the CJI took suo motu cognisance of the grave offence, which created shockwaves throughout India on the intervening night of August 9. Why this was done by the Supreme Court 11 days later, maybe debatable, especially since the case had already been transferred to the CBI by Calcutta High Court in light of mishandling of the case by West Bengal’s machinery. However, the larger systemic issues concerning workplace safety of women, particularly in the healthcare sector, were magnified and taken into account by the Court and dealt by the CJI DY Chandrachud-led bench, by formulating a national task force.
During the hearing, objections were raised by Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, about the “reputational hazards” of live-streaming over the institution as well. “We have 50 years of reputation, it is at stake… why to say that I was laughing…I was not laughing…this is not fair…,” said Sibal.
The CJI emphasised that openness in the judiciary is crucial, while taking note of his concerns about safety of lawyers who represent clients across the spectrum. The CJI’s monumental contribution in access to justice through live-streaming of cases which are nationally important cannot be ignored.
The stance of Sibal, who is the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), is controversial, especially because after he took charge of the lawyers’ body via an election, he had vowed to keep politics out of the courtroom. His current position opposing live-streaming to safeguard his reputation, built over decades, hints at self-preservation.
STARTED IN SEPTEMBER 2018
The Supreme Court’s journey towards live-streaming began in September 2018, with the landmark Swapnil Tripathi judgment. The court ruled that cases of national and constitutional significance be live-streamed to promote transparency, public legal literacy and engagement with the judicial process. Advocates of live-streaming argued that it brings the public closer to the workings of the judiciary, reducing dependence on second-hand interpretations from court reporters and lawyers.
Lest we forget, in 2018, the Supreme Court had said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, while allowing live-streaming of proceedings in the Supreme Court, for larger public interest and to promote transparency. Senior advocate Indira Jaising had petitioned the court to start live-streaming and the Attorney General of India at the time had agreed with the court’s position.
Sibal’s earlier public statements, in which he expressed frustration with the judiciary, further fuels the current debate – Is the issue of access to justice being politicised?
The senior lawyer’s stand on the effect of “institutional reputation” due to live-streaming may be interpreted as shifting goalposts, while risking and undermining public trust in the legal system. As the President of the Highest Court’s lawyers’ body, this may eventually be harmful for the independence of Bar, with its long-standing advocacy in the space of transparency and judicial integrity.
THE CONTRADICTIONS
Sibal’s opposition to transparency through live-streaming in Supreme Court this week and submission of documents in the case which outraged the nation in a sealed cover appear to be contradictory. Mainly because earlier, in 2019, during the P. Chidambaram case, Sibal had vocally opposed the submission of evidence in sealed covers, arguing that such practices undermined the right to a fair trial. He had then asserted that transparency was a cornerstone of natural justice, stating, “The court has said that the opposing side has the right to know what is alleged against them in the documents in a sealed cover.”
Notably, it was Senior Advocate Indira Jaising who first petitioned the Supreme Court for live-streaming of proceedings, citing the public’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Her petition argued that live-streaming would reduce misinformation, foster trust in the judiciary and ensure that the public — especially those unable to attend in person — could stay informed about cases that affect them.
Yet, in the face of Sibal’s attempt to limit public access to the judiciary through his opposition to live-streaming, no opposition was put forth, even though an appeal was made on social media against the CJI and Prime Minister meeting for a Ganesha Pujan to the SCBA President.
Everything is politics but is politics everything? Is it even in the sunlight?
Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment