Supreme Court orders muting of livestream audio during mentioning of fresh cases

Supreme Court orders muting of livestream audio during mentioning of fresh cases

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed that the audio of its live video conferencing feed be switched off during the mentioning of fresh matters before the Chief Justice of India, a move that effectively prevents the public and the media from hearing requests for urgent listings and the court's oral responses.

The decision comes days after the Chief Justice of India observed that the mentioning of urgent matters is an "administrative" exercise rather than a judicial proceeding and, therefore, should not be reported. The latest direction operationalises that position by ensuring that discussions on fresh mentions are no longer audible on the court's virtual platform.

The practice of mentioning allows lawyers to seek urgent listing of cases that require immediate judicial intervention. Over the years, this process has often included high-profile public interest litigations (PILs), politically sensitive disputes, and matters involving constitutional significance. During these sessions, the Chief Justice typically decides whether a matter warrants urgent hearing and may make brief oral observations while fixing a date or declining immediate listing.

In recent months, several politically significant cases and PILs have been mentioned before the Chief Justice, with the court's observations during these exchanges widely reported by the media. Such reporting has occasionally drawn attention even before the cases were formally taken up for hearing.

By disabling the audio during fresh mentions, the Supreme Court has effectively limited public access to this stage of court proceedings, even as the video conferencing feed continues. The move is expected to prevent the dissemination of oral exchanges made during the administrative exercise of case listing.

The development marks a significant change in how the Supreme Court's virtual proceedings are accessed, drawing a clearer distinction between judicial hearings and the administrative process of deciding whether a matter deserves urgent listing. While the court has not issued a detailed public explanation alongside the direction, the move follows the Chief Justice's earlier remarks that such administrative interactions should not be treated as reportable judicial proceedings.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

- Ends