Petition Filed in Gujarat High Court for Providing Live Streaming of Court Proceedings

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

A law student filed a petition in Gujarat High Court for live streaming of court proceedings. He filed the petition under Article 21 and 19(1)(a) which states that people have a right to get fair justice and the right to be informed.

Brief Facts of the Case

The case in hand is Pruthvirajsinh Zala v. High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner is a student at Nirma University, Ahmedabad. The student moved a petition for establishing live-streaming of Gujarat High Court’s proceedings. 

Petitioner’s Submissions

The student filed a petition in the interest of the public. The petitioner stated that due to COVID-19, the High Court started virtual hearings. But it is not accessible to the public including media, law students and litigants etc.

The petitioner further stated that

“The right of access to justice flows from Article 21 of the Constitution. The concept of justice at the doorstep would be meaningful only if the public gets access to the proceedings and in particular, the opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or section of people.”

The petitioner stated that Section 327 of CrPC and Section 153-B of CPC lays down provisions for open trials to the public. He added that live streaming is possible due to the development of technology. In light of the current pandemic, the UK and the USA has adopted live streaming of court proceedings. The petitioner further mentioned that within our country itself, the Kerala High Court is live streaming. Additionally, the Bombay High Court provides public video conferencing hearing. The petitioner already made representation through the mail in this regard.

Grounds for moving a petition

The petitioner filed this application on grounds of Article 21 and 19(1)(a), which provide free access to justice. Citizens also have the right to information.

For his arguments, the petitioner relied upon the nine-judge bench case of the Supreme Court of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. The Apex Court held that all the civil, criminal or other cases must be available in open courts. It is essential to keep the public’s confidence in the judiciary. It is also a must to keep the public’s confidence in the fair administration of justice. 

Thus, the petitioner submitted that there is a need to make proceedings available to all. The Court should give interim relief in this case.

The Court will hear this matter on July 10, 2020. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -