A former Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue on Thursday called for the live telecast of Supreme Court proceedings in cases challenging the nullification of Article 370, citing the risk that the hearings may be misreported.
KN Govindacharya submitted in the apex court that the cases are “a momentous matter,” and the proceedings should the considered for live streaming or video/audio recording on a pilot basis. Cases relating to Article 370 are “very important” and widely covered by Indian and international media, he said.
Proceedings in the cases challenging the effective revocation of Article 370 on August 5, which divested Jammu and Kashmir of its special status, are scheduled to start on December 10.
The matter was mentioned before chief justice SA Bobde by senior counsel Vikas Singh, representing Govindacharya, who prayed for an early listing of the plea. The court agreed, but did not specify any date for hearing the petition. It is unimaginable that in the “21st century digital India”, the top court of the country does not record its proceedings, stated Govindacharya, who had earlier unsuccessfully petitioned the court for live streaming of the proceedings in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute. On Govindacharya’s plea for live streaming of proceedings in the Ayodhya case, the Supreme Court on September 16 asked its own registry to provide a time frame within which a system for live streaming of the case could be made operational.
The court proceeded to conclude the hearing in the Ayodhya case in October and delivered its judgment on the matter on November 9. The registry is yet to submit its response to the court, the petitioner claimed. The plea stated that the judgments of the Supreme Court do not reproduce the actual arguments made by lawyers, which are lost forever, making live streaming of proceedings imperative to preserve the records of the case.
{{/usCountry}}The court proceeded to conclude the hearing in the Ayodhya case in October and delivered its judgment on the matter on November 9. The registry is yet to submit its response to the court, the petitioner claimed. The plea stated that the judgments of the Supreme Court do not reproduce the actual arguments made by lawyers, which are lost forever, making live streaming of proceedings imperative to preserve the records of the case.
{{/usCountry}}“The petition filed by Govindacharya in the WhatsApp snooping case is a good example of why live telecast or recording of proceedings is necessary. In the WhatsApp case, the court had, during the hearing of the case, raised queries on Govindacharya’s claim relating to perjury. But it did not get reflected in the order. It is important that the SC lives up to the expectations which its own judgments have created,” advocate Virag Gupta, who is representing Govindacharya, said.