What began as a significant step toward judicial transparency at the Bombay High Court has quietly retreated. Months after live-streaming of court proceedings was introduced with much anticipation, public access has now been disabled in several key courtrooms, including the Chief Justice’s bench and a few other prominent benches. Notably, this rollback has occurred despite the live-streaming infrastructure remaining fully functional.

The initiative drew inspiration from the landmark 2018 judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India, in which the Supreme Court of India endorsed live-streaming as a means to enhance transparency and public access to justice. The judgment, authored by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, held that live-streaming is consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to access justice, and Article 145(4), which mandates that judgments be delivered in open court.

However, concerns within the judiciary appear to have overtaken the transparency push. Judges reportedly grew uneasy over courtroom videos being selectively edited and circulated on social media, often triggering public backlash. Tensions escalated after a controversial clip—allegedly edited by a lawyer’s father—went viral, showing a judge asking a young woman advocate to leave the courtroom. The incident heightened judicial discomfort with unrestricted public access.

While the court’s website still displays live-streaming links, viewers now encounter a notice stating that public viewing has been disabled. A senior official clarified that the technology remains intact, noting, “The hardware is fine. It’s only the public link that’s switched off.” The episode underscores the ongoing tension between openness and control as courts navigate transparency in the digital age.