 |
|
The Karnataka High Court has expressed its opposition to the live-streaming of court proceedings, citing concerns about the potential for distortion of context and the need for judges to possess a thick skin. This stance emerged in response to a plea filed by the Association of Advocates, which argued that comments and remarks made by judges and lawyers during hearings were often taken out of context and used by live-streaming channels for financial gain. The Court's position highlights the delicate balance between public transparency and the preservation of the integrity and decorum of judicial proceedings.
The Association's concerns underscore the potential pitfalls of live-streaming in a legal context. The immediacy and reach of live broadcasts can amplify isolated statements or actions, potentially leading to misinterpretations and the creation of misleading narratives. This can have detrimental consequences for the individuals involved, as well as for the broader public perception of the justice system. The Court's response acknowledges these risks and emphasizes the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process from potentially harmful external influences.
The Court's comment about judges needing to be 'thick-skinned' reflects the inherent challenges of public scrutiny in the legal profession. Judges, by their very nature, are tasked with making decisions that can impact the lives of individuals and communities. This necessitates the ability to remain impartial and objective in the face of potential criticism. While transparency and accountability are essential principles in a democratic society, the Court's stance suggests that there is a limit to the extent to which judicial proceedings should be subject to live public scrutiny, particularly when it could potentially compromise the fairness and integrity of the justice system.