English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Live streaming of court proceedings allowed by Supreme Court in landmark verdict

Published

on

Supreme Court

India today made a beginning towards joining the list of countries to have live video streaming of court proceedings.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 26, allowed live streaming of court proceedings in cases of constitutional importance and public interest that are heard in the court of the Chief Justice of India.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said that the public had a right to know what happens inside the courtroom. Holding that this would promote transparency in the judiciary, the top court said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

The apex court ruled that such an exercise will enhance transparency and allow common citizens and litigants who cannot be present in the courtroom to know, in real time, the exact developments that have taken place in cases of public interest.

Welcoming the court’s decision, senior advocate Indira Jaising, a petitioner in the case, called it ‘the biggest reform of the century’.

The SC bench said, “Rules have to be followed for this. Live streaming of court proceedings will bring accountability in the judicial system.”

Earlier in July, while hearing a bunch of petitions, Chief Justice Deepak Misra had said, “The concept of access to justice can be stretched through live streaming. Litigants are entitled to know how their cases are dealt with. Litigants will also know how his or her lawyer is presenting the case.”

The Chief Justice however, had a word of caution for sensitive rape trials or matrimonial cases. The court had also said live streaming of proceedings “will help students to learn.”

The verdict was passed on a batch of petitions, including those filed by senior advocate Indira Jaising, law student Swapnil Tripathi and NGO ‘Centre For Accountability and Systemic Change’ on the issue.

Jaising had sought live streaming of cases of national and constitutional importance that are heard in the court of the Chief Justice of India or by a Constitution Bench. She said citizens have the right to information and matters of constitutional and national importance can be live streamed. In western countries, she said, this system was in place and live streaming of court proceedings, including that of the International Court of Justice, are available on YouTube.

Tripathi on the other hand had challenged the bar imposed on law interns entering court rooms on miscellaneous days.

The government had backed the live streaming of trials and said it can be extended to other courts depending on the success of the pilot project.

The Centre has also suggested setting up of a media room where litigants, law interns, lawyers and other visitors can watch the live feed, saying that would help reduce the congestion in the courtroom and corridors. The affidavit also wants special measures to be put in place for differently-abled.

However, the Centre cautioned that the exercise must not be permitted in matrimonial cases, matters involving interests of juveniles or protection and safety of the private life of young offenders and cases involving national security.

Attorney General K K Venugopal said that in some situation, it will have to be disallowed to ensure privacy and security of victims, witnesses or defendants and also in rape cases and in matters where it may provoke communal sentiments.

The bench had asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to assist the court in deciding on the petitions. It had also directed Tripathi to submit suggestions to the Attorney General regarding creation of a live-streaming room in the apex court premises exclusively for law interns and law students.

On Wednesday, the bench gave two concurring verdicts, written by Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud respectively which allowed live streaming of the proceedings as demanded by the petitioners and directed the centre to frame necessary rules for the purpose.

It may be recalled that during the proceedings in the case, Attorney General KK Venugopal had informed the court that the Centre was in favour of live streaming of case proceedings except in cases related to rape, matrimonial disputes and those that concern sensitive issues that could adversely impact the parties in a case. Venugopal had also submitted a set of guidelines for implementing the pilot project in the Chief Justice’s Court for Constitutional cases.

During the course of the hearing, the Bench had agreed with the petitioners, stating at one point that live streaming “was the need of the hour” not only for decongesting the courtrooms, but also to fully implement the idea of an “open court”.

The issue of misreporting of court proceedings by the media had also been highlighted by the bench, particularly by Justice Chandrachud, who on Wednesday said in his concurring verdict that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” and live-streaming would help in ensuring transparency.

India News

Canada fact checks own media, rejects report claiming PM Modi knew of Nijjar murder plot

The clarification comes after a Canadian newspaper cited an unnamed national security official, claiming the alleged plot to murder Nijjar was orchestrated by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Published

on

Canada fact checks own media, rejects report claiming PM Modi knew of Nijjar murder plot

The Canadian government clarified that there is no evidence to connect Prime Minister Narendra Modi or his top officials to any criminal activity in Canada, including the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

The clarification comes after a Canadian newspaper cited an unnamed national security official, claiming the alleged plot to murder Nijjar was orchestrated by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. The media report further alleged that PM Modi, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval were informed about the plan.

Nonetheless, the same report acknowledged that the Canadian government had no direct evidence to support these claims against PM Modi. Issuing a statement, the Canadian government distanced itself from these allegations, mentioning that there was no substantiating evidence.

The statement underlined that on October 14th, because of a significant and ongoing threat to public safety, the RCMP and officials took the extraordinary step of making public accusations of serious criminal activity in Canada perpetrated by agents of the government of India.

It added that the government of Canada has not stated, nor is it aware of evidence, linking Prime Minister Modi, Minister Jaishankar, or NSA Doval to the serious criminal activity within Canada. It remarked that any suggestion to the contrary is both speculative and inaccurate.

Earlier, India furiously rejected the Canadian daily’s report as ludicrous, terming it detrimental to diplomatic ties that have been frosty since Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first accused India of involvement in Nijjar’s killing last year.

Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that they do not normally comment on media reports, but such ludicrous statements made to a newspaper purportedly by a Canadian government source should be dismissed with the contempt they deserve. He added that smear campaigns like this only further damage our already strained ties.

Diplomatic ties between India and Canada weakened when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) accused Indian government agents of involvement in criminal activities on Canadian soil, including murder, extortion, and intimidation. As the diplomatic rift intensified, both the countries expelled top envoys in response.

Hardeep Singh Nijjar was gunned down outside a gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia, in June 2023. Earlier in 2024, Canadian authorities arrested and charged four Indian nationals for the murder.

Continue Reading

India News

Parliament winter session: Government lists 15 bills, including Waqf bill

The session will kick off on November 25 and conclude on December 20.

Published

on

The government has listed five new ones and one to amend the contentious Waqf law out of 15 bills for the winter session of Parliament. The session will kick off on November 25 and conclude on December 20.

The government has introduced five new bills, including the Coastal Shipping Bill, 2024, which aims to promote coasting trade and increase the participation of Indian-flagged vessels owned and operated by Indian citizens for both national security and commercial purposes.

Another significant legislation that will be introduced by the government is the Indian Ports Bill, 2024. This bill is designed to implement measures for the conservation of ports, enhance security, and manage pollution, ensuring compliance with India’s international obligations and statutory requirements.

Additionally, the government plans to introduce the Merchant Shipping Bill, 2024, which aims to meet India’s obligations under maritime treaties and support the development of Indian shipping while ensuring the efficient operation of the Indian mercantile marine in a way that serves national interests.

Pending legislation includes the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, which is awaiting consideration and passage after the joint committee of both Houses submits its report to the Lok Sabha. The committee is expected to report by the end of the first week of the winter session.

Currently, there are eight bills, including the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, pending in the Lok Sabha, while two additional bills are in the Rajya Sabha.

Furthermore, the government has also listed the Punjab Courts (Amendment) Bill for introduction, consideration, and passage, which seeks to increase the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of Delhi district courts from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 20 lakh.

The Merchant Shipping Bill, along with the Coastal Shipping Bill and the Indian Ports Bill, is slated for introduction and eventual passage.

Continue Reading

India News

International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant against Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes

The court accused Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant of crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.

Published

on

International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant against Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) today issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The court accused Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant of crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare. The leaders allegedly restricted essential supplies such as food, water, and medical aid to civilians in Gaza, resulting in severe humanitarian crises and deaths, including among children.

Last year in October, Israel had launched attacks on Gaza in retaliation for the surprise attack by Hamas. The Israel-Hamas war has led to the death of thousands of civilians, while lakhs have been displaced. The major infrastructures in Gaza, including hospitals and schools, were also destroyed as Israel vowed to wipe out Hamas.

The International Criminal Court stated that it found reasonable grounds to believe the accused intentionally targeted civilians and limited medical supplies, forcing unsafe medical procedures, which caused immense suffering. This ruling was based on the findings from at least October 8, 2023 until at least May 20, 2024.

The court remarked that it has assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that PM Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza.

Furthermore, it also noted that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and medical supplies created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, leading to death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration.

Additionally, the International Criminal Court dismissed two challenges by Israel against its jurisdiction in the situation in the State of Palestine.

Notably, Israel had contested the ICC’s jurisdiction, claiming it could not be exercised without Israel’s consent. Nonetheless, the Chamber ruled that the Court has jurisdiction based on Palestine’s territorial scope, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It further noted that Israel’s objections were premature, as jurisdictional challenges under the Rome Statute can only be made after an arrest warrant is issued.

Reportedly, Israel had also requested a fresh notification regarding the investigation, started in 2021. Denying the request, the court stated that Israel had earlier declined to request a deferral, making additional notifications unnecessary.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com