The Supreme Court has set the stage for live-streaming of cases from the top court in a ruling delivered earlier. Once the top court does so, the other courts in the country will follow if they haven’t done so yet.
But is the institution ready for the unrelenting scrutiny that will come its way with the 24×7 coverage?
Going by some of its recent observations in the Hijab and bonded labour cases, the institution needs to carry out a deep introspection and do a course correction before it starts beaming court proceedings live to a million homes.
In the Hijab case, Justice Hemant Gupta (since retired) created a stir when he suggested that that one cannot claim right to dress as a fundamental right as that would include the right to undress, and that would be illogical.
Hearing a case filed by late Swami Agnivesh on behalf of a woman bonded labour alleging rape and confinement, a decade after police filed a closure report on the ground that the woman was not traceable, Justice Gupta dismissed the allegations as a “racket”.
He suggested that the labour who come from backward areas, take money from contractors, eat the money and run away, ironical given that bonded labour is a reality in many parts of the country despite the protection extended by Article 23 against exploitation.
Judges will have to re-train themselves — not to shoot their mouths off or play to the gallery. A modicum of judicial restraint will enhance the credibility of the system. Judges must stop making irrelevant observations too in a case just because they can.
Microphones could be switched on by the presiding judge only when required to curb the instinct to speak extempore whatever comes to the judges’ minds. This will also plug the possibility of any side talk between the judges being beamed live. Any words spoken in court must be measured.
Any off-the-cuff remarks tend to show up judges for their inherent biases against women, children, minorities, the poor and other weaker sections. These biases could be worked on and eliminated by sensitising judges.
Some judges also make sweeping comments in many cases well beyond the ambit of the dispute they are deciding. Why else would a judge examining a corruption case against a petty clerk in the animal husbandry case speak about the scourge of corruption and suggest hanging the corrupt from the nearest lamp-post?
These observations sent worrying signals worldwide that the Indian judiciary was perhaps pushing forth extreme measures to deal with niggling societal problems in a developing country.
One could always say that such judges are few and far between. Their remarks though have a multiplier effect on eroding public credibility in the institution. Such remarks also have no value i.e., they are obiter dicta but lead to myriad repercussions as seen in the Nupur Sharma case recently.
The whole issue blew up and many intellectuals wrote a letter to the CJI asking that these observations be removed when these remarks did not even figure in the final order!
Judges must also be sensitised towards adopting a non-discriminatory approach in court rooms towards one and all.
A successful lawyer cannot get more time and respect than a less successful one, nor should a judge tick off a lady lawyer for shouting to make a point when the gentleman on the other side is equally vociferous and voluble.
These biases show up sometimes in the bodily gestures and words of certain judges.
Judges will have to work on these biases, prejudices and unlearn their condescending elitist approach towards the citizenry. Judges have been known in the past to look down upon those not speaking impeccable English and treat the blue-blooded better.
Virtual hearings in the last two years following the pandemic and lockdown, have shown up in the courts like never before.
Court proceedings are now being recorded piecemeal by lawyers present in court. Live feeds run by certain websites have also reported each and every word of all important cases being adjudicated in court. The results have not been kind to the institution’s image.
Judges can blame any number of irresponsible individuals and the social media for this, all they want, but laying down a Lakshman Rekha for themselves will be a better remedy.
The institution must not only decide when to allow 24×7 live coverage of all courts but also decide how much it wants to reveal in the age of transparency, by not succumbing to the urge to speak non-stop. Judges must go back to speaking only their judgements.
This is not to say that they must not ask searing questions required to decide a law point. They must. Otherwise, justice will be qualitatively impaired. To throw caution to the winds, not exercise judicial discretion is another matter.
Like a judge gleefully revealing in open court his youthful indiscretions — watching cabaret in places permitted to only hold classical dance performances near the Pondicherry-Tamil Nadu border.
Surely this is avoidable, if and when the institution goes completely live.
Lawyers and litigants alike, the other crucial stakeholders in the system, must also resist the temptation to take things casually while appearing in court through virtual links.
Lawyers have in the recent past been caught in various stages of dressing and undressing on live camera. In one instance at least, the male lawyer appeared topless on camera. In another, one was seen in a vest.
A third lawyer was caught red-handed behaving inappropriately with a female junior.
In some other cases, senior lawyers have been seen sipping tea or coffee or eating coolly while their team watches on. Or bitching about their bitter rivals. A section of lawyers has also begun to indulge in competitive histrionics.
This trend must also be addressed by competent disciplinary bodies to arrest a further slide in the institution’s reputation and prevent court proceedings from being reduced to farcical debate levels in TV studios.
