Whalesbook
Bombay High Court Scales Back Live-Streaming Amid Transparency Concerns
Months after its much-heralded launch, the Bombay High Court's initiative to live-stream court proceedings has significantly diminished. What began as a bold step towards judicial transparency has regressed, with only eight courtrooms at the principal seat now actively broadcasting. Several senior benches, including the Chief Justice's, have opted to disable public access, despite the underlying infrastructure remaining intact and functional.
The Core Issue
The once-enthusiastic rollout of live-streaming has encountered a swift curtailment. The number of courtrooms providing live feeds to the public has shrunk dramatically from its initial higher number to just eight at the principal seat. More critically, significant benches, comprising some of the High Court's top judges, have switched off public access. This measure effectively bars litigants-in-person, journalists, and general observers from viewing proceedings online, leaving only advocates-on-record with secure video link access for listed cases.
Reasons for Rollback
Judicial officials and lawyers point to widespread caution regarding the perceived "misuse" of live-streamed content. A particular incident, described by advocates as a "tipping point," involved a viral video clip showing a judge asking a young woman lawyer to leave the courtroom. Reports suggest this footage, allegedly edited by the lawyer's father, drew considerable public criticism of the judge's conduct. This event reportedly angered members of the judiciary, leading to a decision to restrict public access rather than solely address the circulation of edited clips.
Official Statements and Responses
The Bombay High Court's website still displays functional streaming links for active benches. However, attempting to join these proceedings now results in a notice stating, "Public viewing of the proceedings has been disabled by the Court." A senior official confirmed that the hardware is fully operational, with only the public link being deactivated. The High Court, when approached by Bar & Bench, referred to a notice from November 10. This notice stated that live-streaming would occur only with the presiding judge's approval, designating them as authorized officers to grant or deny recording access. Crucially, the notice did not explain why journalists, previously granted observer access, are now barred.
Historical Context and Vision
The live-streaming initiative was launched in July 2025 under then Chief Justice Alok Aradhe. It was inspired by the Supreme Court's landmark 2018 decision in Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India, which encouraged the live-streaming of cases of constitutional importance. The project's initial vision was to foster openness, enabling citizens, students, journalists, and litigants to follow court proceedings remotely, thereby reducing courtroom overcrowding and enhancing public engagement with the judicial process.
Regulatory Framework and Safeguards
The Bombay High Court's Live Streaming and Recording Rules, 2023, stipulate that all proceedings are to be streamed subject to the consent of the presiding judges. However, sensitive categories such as matrimonial disputes, sexual offences, matters under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, or any hearing where publicity could harm justice or public order are exempt from streaming. The Rules strictly prohibit unauthorized recording or sharing. Media or third parties circulating clips without permission face potential action under the Contempt of Courts Act, the IT Act, or the Copyright Act. Only unedited, court-approved footage is permitted for reporting or educational use.
Judiciary's Unease and Expert Analysis
Despite these safeguards, enthusiasm for openness waned within months as clips of oral exchanges, often taken out of context, began appearing on social media platforms. Retired Supreme Court judge Abhay Oka, a proponent of transparency, noted that much of the judiciary's discomfort stems not from the technology itself but from how snippets are disseminated on social media. He explained that judges often pose challenging questions or explore "worst-case scenarios" during arguments, which, when clipped and shared, can lead to public misunderstanding of the court's deliberative process. Justice Oka believes that while sensitive cases involving privacy should be off-limits, most instances of clip misuse should perhaps be ignored. He stressed that a comprehensive mandate for live-streaming requires a full court decision, not merely administrative directives. Advocate Jamshed Mistry echoed support for live-streaming, emphasizing its value for legal education and observing virtual advocacy techniques, questioning the current restrictions on public access.
Practical Challenges and Alternatives
Advocate Hamza Lakdawala highlighted practical difficulties arising from selective streaming. He pointed to inconsistent technology across benches, with some using Zoom and others the High Court's vConsol platform. Access to virtual courtrooms is often restricted until a case is called, increasing the risk of matters being passed over. Lakdawala suggested a middle path, proposing that courts could allow authenticated access for litigants through One-Time Password (OTP)-based links, ensuring traceability if clips are misused.
Comparison with Other Courts
While the Bombay High Court curtails public access, other judicial bodies continue to embrace digital openness. The Supreme Court consistently live-streams most of its proceedings, especially constitutional matters. High Courts in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, and Karnataka also maintain live feeds for select courts, often via platforms like YouTube.
Future Outlook
The Bombay High Court now faces a critical juncture. The physical set-up for live-streaming remains operational, though largely idle for public feeds, as many lawyers also prefer physical appearances. The dilemma lies in whether to restore the public feed, thereby prioritizing transparency, or to maintain current restrictions, yielding to judicial caution and concerns over content misuse.
Impact
This development has significant implications for judicial transparency and public trust in India. By restricting access, the High Court risks diminishing public oversight of its functioning and potentially hindering legal education and informed public discourse. The decision reflects a broader debate occurring across judicial systems worldwide regarding balancing openness with the potential for content manipulation. The rollback could influence how other Indian courts approach live-streaming initiatives, potentially favouring caution over default transparency.
Impact Rating: 8/10
Difficult Terms Explained
• Principal seat: The main location or headquarters of a high court or court.
• Advocates-on-record: Lawyers officially registered with the court to represent clients and file documents.
• Litigants-in-person: Individuals representing themselves in court without legal counsel.
• vConsol: A specific platform or software used for video conferencing, in this context, by the Bombay High Court.
• POCSO Act: The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, a law in India dealing with child sexual abuse.
• Contempt of Courts Act: A law that deals with disobedience or disrespect towards a court of law.
• IT Act: The Information Technology Act, governing cybercrime and electronic commerce in India.
• Copyright Act: A law that protects the rights of creators of original works, including video recordings.
• Article 21: Refers to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, often interpreted to include the right to privacy.