I don't want people tuning in on Amazon firesticks to see what is happening in court for entertainment: Justice GS Patel on live streaming

Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday expressed reservations over the proposals to live-stream court proceedings, opining that while he is not opposed to more openness, there are certain concerns that may crop up if unregulated live streaming is allowed. .Speaking as part of a panel-discussion hosted by DAKSH on Media And its Role in Governance and Accountability, Justice Patel observed that in principle, there is nothing wrong with the live-streaming of court proceedings. .The issue, however, is that there is no mechanism by which you can stop the very serious business of court work, litigation and judging from becoming entertainment.."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 all, the proceedings are not for entertainment of people. "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.".Another issue concerned the possibility of lawyers who would use the fact that the proceedings are being live-streamed to browbeat the judges and play to the gallery. "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.".Pertinently, a lawyer making a fair statement in court to concede that the law is not in his favour could also be misconstrued by the public to draw inferences against the lawyer, Justice Patel noted. In a later part of his talk, Justice Patel added that this is perhaps the more important 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 opined that it is understandable if there is a public law or big-ticket case that people want to genuinely follow. 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 he would not knock off entirely the (more restricted) modes of providing live accounts of court proceedings, including the live-tweeting of court proceedings. .He observed that some of such reportage can be inane. However, such live reports may be able to capture aspects that may be missed in summary daily reporting and perhaps in the judgment itself, he observed. .Responding to a public query posted during the YouTube live session, Justice Patel also had occasion to comment on the public nature of what happens in a courtroom and the manner in which such matters can be reported. ."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.Justice Patel's talk also saw him express concern over how there has been a general decline in the understanding of the fundamentals of the legal process among court reporters. There are some basics that anyone reporting from court must know, he underscored, including the difference 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..While legal journalists do not need to be lawyers, they should understand the difference between such basic concepts when reporting on a criminal case, Justice Patel said, adding that such lack of familiarity is often much more disruptive 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 panelists for the discussion were Justice Rajiv Shakdher of the Delhi High Court, Apurva Vishwanath, Assistant Editor at the Indian Express and Harish Narasappa, co-founder of DAKSH. The dicussion was moderated by Surya Prakash BS, Programme Director at DAKSH..[Read a more detailed account of the session]