The grandstanding dilemma: Maintaining courtroom decorum in the age of live streaming

The Supreme Court recently witnessed a verbal scuffle between Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, during the NEET hearing.

The incident has fueled the recurring debate on the demeanour of lawyers before the highest seat of justice, especially one involving a live-streaming courtroom proceeding. Although there are rules for live streaming, they do not extend to the conduct of members of the Bar and the Bench, which is the moot point of this controversy. This courtroom altercation is not a one-off incident.

There is an enigmatic aura commanded by the judicial offices. This attracts the general public to be part of the live-streaming of courtroom proceedings. The higher the public engagement, bigger is the platform available for lawyers to demonstrate their grand performance mirroring the illusion of virtuous dominance in the courtroom. Although arguable, the unchecked feature of grandstanding by lawyers before the bench side-tracks the actual issue of the case, and the media starts to focus its cycle on sensationalising the feud of the day. This has been termed as a ‘vapid and hollow charade’. The veiled bootstrapping takes attention away from the merit of the argument and re-focuses it on the power dynamics of the courtroom.

It is the lack of guidelines and the potential of live-streaming to stir the general public and influence its perception that brings weightage to the issue of grandstanding. But how does one determine the limit of an expression of disagreement in the routine discourse of a courtroom’s functioning? There is a need for clear, cogent and enforceable standards to ensure that courtroom decorum remains professional and focused on justice, rather than public spectacle. Addressing these concerns is crucial for maintaining the dignity and integrity of the judicial process in the digital age. Let’s delve into the existing rules and regulations for conduct of judges and advocates.

Regulations for legal professionals

In India, courtroom decorum is governed by regulations designed to uphold ethical standards and maintain the integrity of the judicial system. For lawyers, the Advocates Act of 1961 and the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules lay out clear expectations. Lawyers are required to show respect towards the court, avoid making false or misleading statements, and handle cases with honesty and integrity. Judges, on the other hand, adhere to the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, established by the Supreme Court of India in 1997. This document emphasises key principles such as impartiality, ensuring that judges make decisions based solely on the law and facts without any bias or external influence. Judges are also expected to maintain the dignity of the courtroom, treating all participants with patience and courtesy. The Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 outlines the procedures for addressing judicial misconduct, including the investigation and removal of judges.

Examining these established codes of conduct and legal standards, it is easy to decipher that their design is more suited for traditional courtroom settings. The existing rules for live-streaming focus mainly on the technical aspects of broadcasting court proceedings, rather than relaying the decorum of the Bar and the Bench. There is a significant gap in regulations concerning the behavioural aspects of live-streaming proceedings, which needs to be addressed to ensure that courtroom integrity is protected even in a highly charged environment.

Risks of misinterpretation and sensationalism

In the historical judgment of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India in 2018, the Supreme Court set the stage for live-streaming of court proceedings, particularly matters of constitutional and/or national importance. It has been observed that due to live-streaming these wrangles and altercations have come to forefront. This invites unwarranted public scrutiny which strikes at the anvil of judicial integrity and prestige. Considering the flip side to this issue, former Chief Justice NV Ramana had once commented that while live streaming of judicial proceedings would make judges “feel the pressure of public scrutiny”, a judge must “stand up against the public perception out of his commitment to the oath he took under the Constitution”.

There have been several notable incidents of clashes between lawyers and judges during court proceedings in India. From a High Court judge accusing an advocate of being “against me” in 2022 to another judge questioning an IAS officer about his attire during a live-streamed session, concerns about the appropriateness of such moments being broadcast often sprout up. There exists a fair chance of such iterations being misinterpreted by the general public, which can spiral into a controversy attacking the integrity of the judicial institution.

In a notable instance, the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association complained to the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court about the “flagrant and widespread violation” of live-streaming rules. They cited instances of video clippings from court hearings being taken out of context and shared on social media with inappropriate captions, which harmed the reputations of judges, lawyers and litigants. The Association requested the Chief Justice to take suo-motu cognisance of the issue and issue contempt notices to those violating the live-streaming rules.

The current Chief Justice of India had previously recognised the challenges that live-streaming brings to the judiciary. He pointed out that judges must be mindful of how their comments might be perceived by the public. For example, there have been instances where judges' remarks were taken out of context and turned into humorous clips on social media platforms like YouTube. He stressed on the importance of maintaining the seriousness of court proceedings and urged judges to be aware of how social media can distort public understanding of judicial discussions.

The way forward

There is an undercurrent of transparency and judicial accountability that live-streamed courtroom proceedings guarantee. However, there is also the risk of misuse by those seeking to grandstand for public attention. Such an approach not only distracts the system from the core issues of the case, but can also undermine public confidence in the judicial system. There is an equilibrium that needs to be maintained between these competing interests. In light of these overarching challenges, the following suggestions are made.

Firstly, a collaboration between the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the judicial institution is proposed to update the existing codes of conduct to specifically address the aspects of live-streaming of court proceedings. This must be followed by a capacity-building program that trains lawyers in the etiquette of the court.

Secondly, it is also important to ascribe liability to lawyers engaging in unprofessional behaviour to deter the glorification of grandstanding.

Thirdly, in case there is professional misconduct or a clear case of grandstanding has come to the forefront, expungement of the exchange between the Bar and the Bench from the records/archives of the court is proposed. This would curb sensationalisation and help mitigate the risk of public misinterpretation.

Lastly, it is also necessary for judges to be mindful of their words and actions and exercise judicial restraint when provoked by episodes of grandstanding. This ensures a dignified environment where cogent legal arguments take precedence over courtroom theatrics.

Anamika Shukla is an Assistant Professor of Law at Gujarat National Law University (GNLU). Tarun is an Assistant Professor (Research), GNLU. Prachi Tripathi is a law student studying at Jamia Millia Islamia.