In the digital age, transparency and accountability in the judicial system have become paramount concerns, particularly with regard to ensuring the accessibility of court proceedings. The seminal case of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India laid the foundation for the live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings in India, signalling a watershed moment in legal transparency. The judgment touched on significant constitutional rights, particularly the right to access justice, and proposed a paradigm shift in the traditionally closed-off nature of judicial hearings.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional implications, statutory frameworks, and the evolution of legal thought that culminated in the Swapnil Tripathi judgment. It critically examines relevant statutory provisions, including constitutional guarantees under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, and reviews other judicial pronouncements that paved the way for this progressive legal development. In addition, it contrasts the Indian approach with global jurisprudence, contextualizing the evolution of transparency within the judiciary. Finally, the article assesses the broader impact of live streaming on public trust in the judiciary, while scrutinizing the challenges it poses.

Introduction
The Indian judiciary has long been revered for upholding the constitutional ethos of democracy, justice, and the rule of law. However, despite its noble mission, the judicial system has often been criticized for being opaque and inaccessible to the common man. Traditionally, proceedings of the Supreme Court of India were confined to the courtroom walls, with the public and press relying on limited reporting to understand the course of justice.

The landmark judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) fundamentally altered this scenario by advocating for the live streaming of court proceedings, thus ushering in a new era of judicial transparency. This judgment not only underscored the significance of the public's right to access judicial processes but also set a precedent for utilizing technology to bridge the gap between the judiciary and the masses.
Live streaming of court proceedings brings to the forefront two pivotal aspects of the Indian Constitution: the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to access justice under Article 21.

By allowing public access to the proceedings of the highest court, the judiciary can foster greater public confidence, prevent misinformation, and ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. This article undertakes an exhaustive analysis of the Swapnil Tripathi judgment, exploring its constitutional underpinnings, statutory framework, and its impact on legal jurisprudence. It also delves into the potential challenges posed by live streaming, including concerns related to privacy, data protection, and courtroom decorum.

Background: The Journey Towards Transparency

Historically, court proceedings in India have been subject to stringent rules regarding public access. While the concept of open courts was enshrined in the judicial framework, the practicalities of such openness were limited by physical space and the complexities of legal processes. The demand for live streaming as a means to enhance judicial transparency gained momentum following the increasing use of technology in governance and public administration.

In Swapnil Tripathi, the petitioners contended that live streaming would enhance transparency and accountability, allowing citizens, particularly law students and legal professionals, to witness the functioning of the highest court. The petitioners relied heavily on the principle of open justice, a maxim that dates back to common law traditions and emphasizes that judicial proceedings should be open to public scrutiny to ensure fairness and impartiality.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, recognized that the live streaming of its proceedings would serve the larger public interest by allowing citizens to understand the rationale behind judicial decisions, particularly in cases of constitutional importance. This move was also seen as a natural extension of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which includes the right to information.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

The Swapnil Tripathi judgment rests on a firm constitutional foundation, particularly Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. These provisions have been expansively interpreted by the judiciary to include various facets of the right to access information and justice.

• Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression:
  Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to receive information. In Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995 SCC (2) 161), the Court held that the right to impart and receive information is an integral part of the right to freedom of speech. The Swapnil Tripathi judgment extended this, ruling that live streaming of court proceedings would facilitate the public's right to receive information about judicial processes and enhance accountability.
   
• Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty:
  Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and has been judicially expanded to include the right to access justice. The Supreme Court, in cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979 AIR 1369), held that access to justice is a vital aspect of Article 21. By enabling the public to view court proceedings in real-time, the judiciary ensured that justice was accessible to all, especially in cases of public importance. Live streaming is seen as an extension of the audi alteram partem principle, ensuring the public can participate indirectly in the judicial process.
   
• The Role of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act:
  While the Swapnil Tripathi judgment focused on constitutional provisions, it also touched on statutory frameworks like the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. These statutes address issues that may arise from live streaming, including contempt of court and the dissemination of misleading or defamatory content.
  Section 228 of the IPC penalizes acts that cause disruption or disrespect within a court. The IT Act provides a legal framework for concerns related to data protection and privacy, essential for live streaming.
   
• Key Judicial Precedents:
  Several judicial precedents shaped the discourse on live streaming, ultimately leading to the Swapnil Tripathi judgment.
  • Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966 AIR 1): The Supreme Court examined open courts, holding that public access to judicial proceedings ensures transparency but acknowledged that restrictions could be justified in the interest of justice.
  • Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995 SCC (2) 161): This case recognized the right to information as part of the right to freedom of speech. The Court emphasized that live streaming serves a public purpose by allowing citizens to access judicial proceedings.
  • Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017 10 SCC 1): The right to privacy posed a challenge to live streaming. The Court in Swapnil Tripathi concluded that the public interest in transparency outweighed privacy concerns in cases of constitutional importance.
     
• Challenges and Concerns:
  While the Swapnil Tripathi judgment is progressive, challenges remain. The potential for misuse of live-streamed content is a concern, as court proceedings, particularly in high-profile cases, are susceptible to misinterpretation or sensationalization. There are also challenges in maintaining courtroom decorum, with the presence of cameras potentially influencing the behavior of litigants, lawyers, and judges. Privacy and security concerns are significant, especially in sensitive cases. Data protection and cybersecurity must be addressed to ensure secure live streaming.
   
• Global Comparisons:
  Several countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, have adopted varying approaches to live streaming judicial proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court does not permit live streaming to protect the court's dignity, while the U.K. Supreme Court allows live streaming under strict guidelines. Canada's Supreme Court has embraced live streaming as a means of enhancing transparency while maintaining the court's integrity.

Conclusion
The Swapnil Tripathi judgment is a landmark in the Indian judiciary's journey towards greater transparency and accessibility. By allowing live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings, the judiciary has taken a significant step in demystifying the legal process and fostering public trust. While challenges remain, particularly concerning privacy and data protection, the potential benefits of live streaming in promoting accountability and enhancing access to justice far outweigh the risks.

The live streaming of court proceedings represents a profound shift in the traditional judicial ethos, embracing technology to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. In the words of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," and the Swapnil Tripathi judgment has ensured that the rays of transparency now illuminate the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court of India.

References:

• Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018 SCC OnLine SC 963) - Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, Constitution of India.
• Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995 SCC (2) 161).
• Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966 AIR 1).
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017 10 SCC 1).