In a significant legal development, the Advocates Association Bengaluru, led by its President, Vivek Subba Reddy, has petitioned the Karnataka High Court to restrain the public and social media platforms from misusing live-streamed court proceedings. The move comes in the wake of controversial videos featuring Justice V. Srishananda that surfaced online, sparking widespread criticism and concern within the legal community.
The petition was mentioned on Monday before a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Hemant Chandangoudar and is expected to be heard on Tuesday. The association is seeking immediate directives for the Central Government to prevent individuals, media agencies, and social media platforms from using, editing, morphing, or illegally disseminating videos of live court proceedings.
Specifically, the association has requested the court to order platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to remove all videos, clips, and shorts derived from live court proceedings. They have identified channels such as Kahale News and Fans Troll, among others, as parties that have allegedly misused these videos. Additionally, the petition calls for appropriate criminal action against those misusing the live-streamed content, emphasizing the need for justice and equity.
The controversy centers around two video clips of Justice V. Srishananda that recently appeared on social media. In one clip, the judge is heard referring to a locality in Bengaluru as “Pakistan,” while in another, he makes objectionable remarks to a female advocate. These videos have not only gone viral but have also drawn sharp criticism from social media users and prominent lawyers, raising questions about judicial decorum and the implications of live-streaming court proceedings.
The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the matter, directing the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court to submit a detailed report after consulting with the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The apex court is scheduled to hear the matter on September 25.
In their petition, the Advocates Association expressed concern over the widespread circulation of the videos, stating that it has allowed the general public to unjustly criticize the judiciary and the legal profession. “These videos are causing harm, especially to the younger members of the Bar who are passionately learning the nuances and intricacies of the legal profession by appearing before constitutional courts,” the petition reads.
The association further highlighted the detrimental effect on budding lawyers, who may become hesitant to present arguments out of fear of being trolled or misrepresented online. “The young budding lawyers are becoming conscious of the fact that they may be trolled for their submissions or arguments, thus creating a great threat to the profession at large, especially when we are facing a shortage of good and efficient litigating lawyers,” the petition stated.
Asserting that the misuse of live broadcasts is “arbitrary, illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in the eyes of the law,” the association argued that such actions violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. They urged the court to impose punitive measures against those responsible for misusing the live-streamed videos, particularly in sensitive cases like matrimonial disputes.
Advocate Trivikram S is representing the Advocates Association in this case. The outcome of this petition could have significant implications for the live streaming of court proceedings in India, balancing the ideals of transparency with the need to protect the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession.
