Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court
“The Case That Opened Supreme Court Doors to the World Through Live Streaming”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that live streaming of court proceedings is part of the right to access justice under Article 21 and freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). The Court directed that proceedings of constitutional importance shall be live streamed, starting as a pilot project. This landmark judgment opened the doors of Indian courts to millions who cannot physically attend hearings.
The Bottom Line
You have the right to watch Supreme Court proceedings live. Cases of constitutional and national importance will be live streamed. This right flows from your fundamental right to access justice under Article 21.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Petitions Filed
Multiple writ petitions filed seeking live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings
Petitions Filed
Multiple writ petitions filed seeking live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings
Judgment Delivered
Supreme Court rules in favor of live streaming, issues model guidelines
Judgment Delivered
Supreme Court rules in favor of live streaming, issues model guidelines
Implementation Begins
Constitution Bench proceedings start being live streamed on YouTube
Implementation Begins
Constitution Bench proceedings start being live streamed on YouTube
The Story
In 2017, several petitioners including Swapnil Tripathi, Indira Jaising, and civil society organizations filed writ petitions seeking live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings.
The petitioners argued that open justice is a fundamental principle and that physical access to courtrooms is limited. Technology now allows proceedings to be broadcast to millions who cannot travel to Delhi.
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional basis for such a demand and whether it would affect the administration of justice. The Court also considered concerns about potential disruption, witness intimidation, and commercialization of justice.
After detailed consideration, a three-judge bench unanimously ruled in favor of live streaming, holding it to be an extension of the open court principle enshrined in Article 145(4) of the Constitution.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Open court is constitutional mandate
Article 145(4) requires judgments to be delivered in open court. Live streaming extends this principle to modern times.
Access to justice is fundamental right
Most citizens cannot travel to Delhi to witness proceedings. Virtual access democratizes justice.
Transparency strengthens democracy
Public scrutiny of judicial proceedings enhances accountability and public confidence in the judiciary.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Potential for disruption
Live streaming may lead to playing to the gallery, disrupting the solemn atmosphere of courts.
Witness protection concerns
Witnesses may be intimidated if their testimony is broadcast live.
Privacy considerations
Parties to sensitive matters may not want their cases broadcast publicly.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court recognized that the principle of open justice has been a cornerstone of the legal system but needs to evolve with technology. The Court balanced the right to access with practical concerns by prescribing detailed guidelines that protect sensitive matters while enabling broader access.
The right to access justice flowing from Article 21 would certainly include the right to witness proceedings in courts. When physical constraints limit such access, technology comes to aid the fulfilment of this right.
Establishes constitutional basis for live streaming.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Courts are public institutions and must function with transparency.
Links judicial transparency to public interest.
Live streaming will also inculcate a sense of confidence in the common man about the administration of justice.
Recognizes the public confidence-building aspect of transparency.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The Supreme Court directed implementation of live streaming, which has since become a reality with Constitution Bench proceedings being broadcast on YouTube.
Directions Issued
- Live streaming to begin as a pilot project in the Supreme Court
- Initially limited to cases of constitutional and national importance
- Model Guidelines prescribed for implementation
- Presiding judge to have discretion on granting/revoking permission
- Two-minute delay in broadcast to allow editing of sensitive content
- Cases involving sexual offences, national security, juveniles excluded
- High Courts to consider similar implementation
Key Legal Principles Established
Live streaming of court proceedings is a right flowing from Article 21 (access to justice).
Article 19(1)(a) supports the public's right to know how justice is administered.
Open court principle under Article 145(4) extends to virtual access.
Cases involving sexual offences, national security, juveniles are excluded.
Presiding judge has discretion to permit or revoke live streaming.
Two-minute delay system to prevent misuse.
No commercial exploitation of broadcast.
High Courts should implement similar systems.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- You can now watch Supreme Court proceedings live on YouTube.
- Cases of constitutional importance are routinely streamed.
- This is your fundamental right under Article 21.
- Sensitive cases (sexual offences, juveniles, national security) are not streamed.
- You cannot commercially use or misuse the broadcast.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: Right to life includes right to access justice, which extends to virtual access.
Article 19(1)(a)
Constitution of India
“All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
Relevance: Public has right to know how justice is administered.
Article 145(4)
Constitution of India
“No judgment shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save in open Court.”
Relevance: Constitutional mandate for open court proceedings.
Related Cases & Precedents
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra
cited(1966) 3 SCR 744
Upheld the open court system as a fundamental principle of justice administration.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
cited(1978) 1 SCC 248
Expanded Article 21 to include various facets of life and liberty.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.