I don’t want people tuning in to see what happens in court for entertainment on Amazon firesticks: Justice GS Patel in panel discussion on “Media And its Role in Governance and Accountability

Dated: January 27, 2021

                                                                                                                                                           - By Megha Bhatia

On January 26, 2020 Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court expressed reservations about the proposals for live-stream court proceedings, opining that while he is not opposed to more transparency, if unrestricted live streaming is permitted, there are certain issues that may arise.

Justice Patel, speaking as part of a panel discussion hosted by Daksh on “Media And its Role in Governance and Accountability,” noted that there is nothing wrong with the live streaming of court proceedings in principle.

The problem, however, is that there is no method by which you can prevent entertainment from being the very serious business of court work, litigation and judging.

“It’s not a circus, I’m not here to entertain anyone. That’s not the point, it becomes entertainment. There are shows in America where you have ‘Judge Judy’ or whatever... We are not like this... I don’t want people tuning in on the Amazon firesticks and saying ‘let’s see what’s happening in Justice Shakdher’s courtroom or Justice Patel’s courtroom because I have nothing else to do this Monday afternoon’,” Justice Patel said. 

He added that while his court room is open to everyone, the trials are not for people’s entertainment.

“You want to follow what’s happening in court? My court is open. By all means, make the effort, come to court, I am not asking who you are. Sit there, take notes, listen, no problem. But I am not here to entertain you. I didn’t agree to become an entertainer. That’s not my job description.”

The likelihood of lawyers who will use the fact that the hearings are being live-streamed to browse the judges and play the gallery was another problem.

“You have no means of stopping this. The moment a judge reacts, and sometimes as human beings, we do react, harshly - that will be blown out of proportion.”

Clearly, Justice Patel observed that a lawyer making a fair statement in court to accept that the law is not in his favour may also be misconstrued by the public to draw inferences against the lawyer. Justice Patel added in a later part of his talk that this is probably the most critical concern.

When you say let’s do live streaming without any restrictions, you are opening it up unregulated and I am not in favour of that. There is no method we have of making sure these issues are addressed,” he opined. 

He, however, clarified that he is not opposed to more openness

I am just saying that there is no method that we have figured out to deal with this in a manner that would allow us to still do our work with nuances that our work sometimes demands.

All the same, he believed that if there is a public statute or big-ticket case that people want to truly pursue, it is understandable. The concern, he observed, is that “livestreaming should not, at any stage, risk becoming something that is for the idle.

Justice Patel also observed that the (more restricted) methods of providing live accounts of court proceedings, including live tweeting of court proceedings, would not be fully eliminated. 

He observed that some of this form of reporting may be inane. However, in summary regular reporting and even in the judgement itself, he noted, such live reports may be able to catch aspects that may be missing.

Justice Patel also had the opportunity to comment on the public nature of what happens in a courtroom and the manner in which such matters can be recorded in response to a public question posted during the YouTube live session.

“Anything we judges do in the court is in the public domain and is fair reportage, provided it is accurate. The only thing Justice Shakdher and I are saying is, don’t pick up on something that is inaccurate and take it out of proportion or out of context. We are not saying, don’t report. You must, that is your job, that is what the press is there for and it is important that the press does this with the judiciary and keeps the judiciary as part of the process of how a democracy is actually functioning,” Justice Patel said.

Understand the difference between “bail” and “acquittal”: Justice Patel on the basics of court reporting

The speech by Justice Patel also saw him express concern about how there has been a general decline in the understanding among court reporters of the fundamentals of the legal process. He stressed that there are some fundamentals that someone who reports from the court must know, including the distinction between “bail” and “acquittal.”

“The fact that an accused got bail does not ever mean that he is allowed to get away scot free. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard this on Television - not read it, because I think the print media tends to pull back a lot more - but TV media certainly lets fly. The impression seems to be ‘oh look, he is accused, why has he been let out of jail?’ This is a fundamental misconception about the law on bail which says that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception.’ That is rooted in our Constitutional mandate ... to very jealously guard the right to individual liberty,” Justice Patel explained.

Although legal journalists do not need to be lawyers, when reporting on a criminal case, Justice Patel said they should understand the difference between such basic concepts, adding that such a lack of familiarity is sometimes even more destructive than one imagines.

“When you have an outcry over something that is perhaps as routine as bail...this tends to put pressure on judges... Do Journalists need training? I’m not sure.. do they need an understanding of some core fundamentals? Certainly, and without doubt.”

The other panellists for the discussion were Delhi High Court Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Indian Express Assistant Editor Apurva Vishwanath and DAKSH co-founder Harish Narasappa. Surya Prakash BS, Programme Director at DAKSH, chaired the debate.


Top Stories