The India Legal show deliberated on the recent decision taken by the apex court necessitating CCTVs in courtrooms all over the country. The show comprising of the eminent panellists ranging from lawyers and ex-Judges talked about the pros and cons of having CCTVs in courtrooms.

Rajshri Rai, Editor-in-Chief, APN moderated the show. The panellists included:

• Justice V K Gupta, former Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court
• Justice Bhavar Singh, former Judge, Allahabad High Court
• Anup George Chaudhari, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
• Justice A N Mittal, Chairman, UP Law Commission
• Rupinder Suri, President, SCBA
• P H Parekh, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
• K T S Tulsi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
• Pallav Sisodia, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
• K K Manan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court

Rai started the debate by asking the first question to Justice Gupta. She asked: “How do you see this decision of installing CCTVs in courtrooms.”

Justice Gupta replied: “Transparency has always been in our courts. In our country, there has been unrestricted entry to our courts. The proceedings of courts has been the hallmark of Indian judicial system ever since unlike other government institutions where there has always been restriction. Same with the records of the court. It has always been accessible unlike the record of other government institutions.”

Justice Singh warned that the repercussions of the decision could be serious. Singh said: “Tarquova Lassen has written a book on professional ethics in CCTV cameras. In this book, he wrote that CCTV cameras violate human rights. But he also said that CCTV cameras could prove useful in solving crime cases.”

Justice Mittal regarded the installation of the CCTVs as a good move. Mittal observed: This is a welcome step. This will stop corruption especially in district courts. The advocates indulges in aggressive behaviour in extracting favourable verdicts from the Judges. They create anarchy and chaos in the courtrooms. So to curb these kinds of behaviour, it would be helpful. This should be implemented as quickly as possible. I don’t see any negative aspect into it.”

Chaudhari contested the contentions of Mittal adjudging the move as hastily taken and ill-conceived. Chaudhari said: “This decision has been hastily taken. Principally, this decision is good. The Supreme Court has taken the decision impulsively. It should have appointed an amicus and served notices to Advocate General of the states.

“But the question is: How this should be implemented? Now it has been said that HCs will have the say whether they will provide recordings or not. So at least give parties a freedom of accessing the recordings. This is arbitrary.”

Here are some of the bytes/views of the panellists:

Anup George Chaudhari

Justice Bhavar Singh

Pallav Sisodia

P H Parekh

Rupinder Suri

K T S Tulsi

K K Manan

Justice A N Mittal

—India Legal Bureau