The livestream audio in the court of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was muted during the oral mentioning session, following a specific directive. The sudden audio cutout left the public, members of the media, and legal practitioners unable to hear the exchanges between the Bench and the counsel presenting their cases for mentioning, creating a gap in the transparency of the court’s initial daily proceedings.
The incident occurred during the “mentioning” phase of the court’s schedule—a critical period where lawyers request urgent listings of matters or seek immediate intervention from the court before the formal cause list is addressed. While the visual feed remained active, the audio was disabled, effectively silencing the dialogue between the judiciary and the bar during these preliminary requests.
The muting was not a technical glitch but was carried out as per a directive. This distinction is significant, as it indicates a deliberate administrative decision to restrict the auditory broadcast of a specific segment of the court’s operations, despite the broader institutional move toward open-court digitalization.
Why It Matters
The selective silencing of court proceedings raises fundamental questions regarding the consistency of judicial transparency in India. The introduction of livestreaming in the Supreme Court was framed as a landmark shift toward “open justice,” intended to democratize access to the highest court in the land and allow citizens to witness the judicial process without the filter of media summaries.
When audio is muted by directive, the “open court” becomes a visual-only experience. For the public and legal observers, the inability to hear the reasoning behind why certain matters are granted urgent hearings while others are denied creates an information asymmetry. The mentioning stage is often where the court’s immediate priorities are set; therefore, restricting access to these discussions limits the ability of external observers to hold the process accountable for fairness and impartiality in case scheduling.
Analysis:
The muting of audio during the mentioning stage represents a tension between the judiciary’s push for transparency through livestreaming and the internal procedural directives of the court. While livestreaming is intended to increase public access to judicial proceedings, the selective muting of specific segments suggests a controlled approach to what information is accessible to the public in real-time. This creates a paradox where the court is technically “open” via a digital stream, but functionally closed during the preliminary phases of the day. The decision to mute audio suggests that the court views the mentioning process as a procedural formality rather than a substantive judicial act, yet the outcomes of these mentions—such as the granting of an urgent hearing—have significant legal and political implications.
Background and Context
The Supreme Court of India has incrementally expanded its livestreaming capabilities over the last few years. The move was largely seen as a response to the need for greater accessibility, especially following the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced a shift toward virtual hearings. The goal was to ensure that the law is not just delivered but is seen to be delivered.
However, the implementation of livestreaming has been accompanied by various guidelines to balance transparency with the dignity of the court and the privacy of the parties involved. While the court has generally been open to broadcasting substantive arguments, the “mentioning” phase has historically been a more fluid, less formal part of the day.
In many legal traditions, mentioning is viewed as a request for the court’s time rather than a formal argument on the merits of a case. However, in the Indian context, where the Supreme Court’s docket is heavily overburdened, the ability to “mention” a matter and get it listed urgently is a high-stakes interaction. The lack of audio during this phase prevents the public from understanding the criteria the Bench uses to prioritize certain petitions over others.
What to Watch Next
The reaction from the legal community and transparency advocates will be a key indicator of whether this becomes a standard operating procedure. If the muting of audio during mentioning becomes a regular occurrence, it may lead to calls for a more formalized, written record of mentioning requests and the court’s responses to them.
Observers should monitor whether similar directives are applied to other benches or if this is a specific preference of the current CJI’s court. Furthermore, any official clarification from the Supreme Court Registry regarding the specific reasons for the directive—whether they relate to administrative efficiency, the prevention of “trial by media” during preliminary stages, or other procedural concerns—will be essential for understanding the court’s current philosophy on digital transparency.
There is also the possibility that this move could prompt a debate on the “right to know” versus “judicial discretion.” If the public is denied the ability to hear how the court manages its calendar, the perceived transparency of the livestreaming initiative may be diminished, leading to accusations that the digital window is being curated rather than opened.
Conclusion
The decision to mute audio during the oral mentioning session in the CJI’s court highlights the fragile balance between institutional control and public transparency. While the visual feed remains, the absence of sound during a critical phase of court management limits the effectiveness of the livestreaming project. As the judiciary continues to integrate technology into its operations, the criteria for what is broadcast and what is silenced will remain a focal point for those advocating for a truly transparent and accountable legal system.
Sources:
The Hindu – National: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/livestream-audio-muted-in-cjis-court-during-oral-mentioning-as-per-directive/article71282817.ece
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source
