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

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com