In a first, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has decided to live-stream judicial proceedings for which it ran a trial on Friday. According to officials, the public now will be able to stream through judicial proceedings by next month.
The streaming of judicial proceedings and whether this accessibility to the public contributes to the betterment of the justice system is a contested debate, with all sides having valid arguments. This move makes justice more visible and accessible. The general public being able to observe the way that decisions are reached by the courts, especially in matters of national importance, will lead to a more transparent system of decision making as arguments from both sides are likely to be in the public domain.
Considering that a lot of integral issues impacting the parliament and the leadership of the country eventually come down to decisions of the courts, it seems only fair that the judicial process is also reformed for a more participatory form of democracy.
However, critics of streaming of court proceedings have identified some problematic aspects that can come with the initiative, which can negatively impact the independence of the judiciary. As seen by recent political affairs, the courts have to make some necessary but unpopular decisions. The public’s reactions on watching streams of court proceedings should not impact the decisions of the court. Moreover, sensitive cases, involving minors and rape victims, for instance, should be exempt from streaming. Privacy in certain cases must be ensured; otherwise, some parties may stop seeing legal recourse as an option for justice.
Cases are decided by the courts of the country, not the court of the public and before streaming is introduced, the legal fraternity needs to ensure codes of conduct to protect the court, lawyers and litigants from public pressures.
The streaming of judicial proceedings and whether this accessibility to the public contributes to the betterment of the justice system is a contested debate, with all sides having valid arguments. This move makes justice more visible and accessible. The general public being able to observe the way that decisions are reached by the courts, especially in matters of national importance, will lead to a more transparent system of decision making as arguments from both sides are likely to be in the public domain.
Considering that a lot of integral issues impacting the parliament and the leadership of the country eventually come down to decisions of the courts, it seems only fair that the judicial process is also reformed for a more participatory form of democracy.
However, critics of streaming of court proceedings have identified some problematic aspects that can come with the initiative, which can negatively impact the independence of the judiciary. As seen by recent political affairs, the courts have to make some necessary but unpopular decisions. The public’s reactions on watching streams of court proceedings should not impact the decisions of the court. Moreover, sensitive cases, involving minors and rape victims, for instance, should be exempt from streaming. Privacy in certain cases must be ensured; otherwise, some parties may stop seeing legal recourse as an option for justice.
Cases are decided by the courts of the country, not the court of the public and before streaming is introduced, the legal fraternity needs to ensure codes of conduct to protect the court, lawyers and litigants from public pressures.