CASE COMMENTARY ON: SWAPNIL TRIPATHI V. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (2018)

The significant shift in the area of openness happened after the decision in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India in 2018. The case began as Public Interest Litigations under Article 32 of the Constitution, pressing the issue of the live streaming of the proceedings of the Supreme Court, especially those that are constitutionally significant. The petitioners claimed that the ability of the public to know everything under Article 19(1)(a) "right to information" and Article 21 "right to access justice" is restricted by the gates of the Supreme Court. In a unanimous judgment, the three-judge bench disposed of the issue of live streaming by treating it as an extension of the open court principle. The underlying principle, as the Supreme Court noted in the matter, is that not only ought justice to be done but it ought to be seen to be done as well. While resorting to the Constitution and existing laws and precedents in other countries, the Supreme Court concluded that live streaming enhances the degree of transparency, trust, and democracy. At the same time, it also noted the concerns over the implications on privacy, dignity, and the right to a fair trial and has accordingly put in place the filtering mechanism on matters of matrimonial disputes, sexual offenses, and national security. In a decision that balances the need for openness with judicial prudence, public participation in the judicial process is poised to increase in India with a ruling that reaffirms the importance of the government's commitment to open, accessible, and accountable legal processes in the country.