Supporting live streaming of court proceedings in the context of open justice in the digital era, Justice Vikram Nath of the Supreme Court on Friday said that if technology can extend the public gallery without compromising dignity and fairness, openness becomes closer to the constitutional promise of open court that is usable for the citizens at large.Justice Nath was delivering the 21st Justice PD Desai Memorial Lecture on ‘Open Justice in Digital Republic’ at the auditorium of Gujarat High Court here.“In a constitutional democracy, courts do not command obedience by force, they command it because their authority is reasoned and because their process is worthy of confidence. Openness has therefore always been part of…justice…But the phrase Digital Republic signals a change in (how) our citizens live and participate in public life. The public sphere today is not only the courthouse steps..It is increasingly the screen in the citizens’ hands and the accounts through which citizens speak to one another on social media. Participation, learning and accountability are now mediated through technology. When the republic becomes digital in the sense, the older guarantee of open courts cannot be understood only as a guarantee of open doors. It must also address the reality of distance, time, cost and access,” Justice Nath said while explaining the broader view and importance of ‘open court’.Justice Nath, the former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, was elevated to the Supreme Court in August 2021. He is credited with starting the live streaming of Gujarat HC proceedings on YouTube for the first time in the country in July 2021. He is likely to become the next Chief Justice of India in February, 2027.“I am introduced (at the event) as a judge who first started live streaming of court proceedings in India at the Gujarat High Court. I accept that introduction with pride and humility. But I also know that it is not a story of one person. It is a story of an institution…,” he said, in the initial remarks of his lecture.Citing Gujarat’s experience of live streaming court proceedings, Justice Nath said, “The digital is no longer an external add on. It is now a procedural norm in itself. In that setting open doors cannot be the whole meaning of open justice. If physical access alone is the measure, openness becomes a privilege of geography and resources. If technology can extend the public gallery without compromising dignity and fairness, openness becomes closer to a constitutional promise that is usable for the citizens at large. Once openness can travel through technology, the real question is how we design it responsibly. If virtual openness is conceptually justified, the next question is practical. What does a workable model look like and how do we build it without losing discipline? That is where Gujarat’s experience becomes a valuable case study.”He explained how during and after Covid-19 pandemic the live streaming of court proceedings began at some courts of Gujarat HC which eventually started doing it for all the courts at HC in July 2021.Story continues below this adDiscussing the pros of live streaming of court proceedings, Justice Nath said, “Live streaming can also serve a broader public purpose. It can become one of the most effective instruments for improving legal literacy in India…When citizens can watch these intricacies unfold, they understand the constitution not as a distant text, but as a working promise. A society that understands its institutions is better equipped to trust them, to engage with them and to build upon them. Live streaming also strengthens accountability within the system. Visibility changes behavior, frivolous adjournments become harder to normalise, routine explanations are more likely to be questioned. Litigants are less dependent on opaque second hand accounts of what happened. This does not mean the court became harsh, it means the system becomes more answerable.”Justice Nath discussed the worries from bar and bench about live streaming of court proceedings, but added that it cannot be considered as the reasons to stop the process, but rather challenges to be addressed.He said, “Live streaming sometimes makes all of us slightly self conscious. A raised voice, a sharp exchange…a lawyer caught on camera at an awkward moment…or an unpleasant altercation that no one is proud of can all end up becoming a viral clip. And once a clip travels, context often does not. I understand the resistance that it produces from the judicial side. There is a genuine worry about selective extracts being circulated as if they were the whole story. From the bar there is concern that the client may misunderstand a moment or judge an advocate’s performance by a 30-second excerpt and start providing post-hearing feedback with the confidence of a television commentator. But these are not reasons to abandon open justice. They are reasons to design it better, to educate the public better and to develop a professional culture that does not refrain from transparency simply because transparency occasionally catches us in our human moments. The answer to a few misused clips cannot be to close the doors again.”Role of AIJustice Nath also spoke about the possible way forward in live streaming of court proceedings with benefits and dangers it may face from artificial intelligence (AI).Story continues below this ad“Once we accept that open justice in a digital republic cannot stop at open doors, we must also recognise that livestreaming is only the first step. The next frontier is not merely visibility. It is comprehension, accessibility and authenticity. It is the ability of the citizen to follow what is happening, to locate it later and to trust that what is being seen is genuine. This is where artificial intelligence will increasingly enter the courtroom ecosystem. But it is important to emphasize that AI is a tool, it can assist the system, but it cannot replace human responsibility that lies at the heart of adjudication, specially in the context of the Indian legal system,” Justice Nath said.He added, “AI can however greatly deepen open justice, if used responsibly. It can generate captions of live proceedings, create searchable transcripts, assist translations across Indian languages, improve access for persons with disabilities and help organise archives so that citizens can locate relevant portions of a hearing without wading through hours of footage. In that sense, it can make openness more intelligible and more usable.”With a word of caution with reference to AI, Justice Nath said, “But AI also brings real dangers. Generative tools can hallucinate. They can invent case law, fabricate quotations and produce material that looks authoritative while being totally wrong. We have already seen enough examples to know that this concern is not hypothetical. That is why the responsibility for verification must always remain human.”In this context, he further said, “In a digital republic, the danger is not only secrecy. It is also counter faith transparency. The appearance of authenticity without authenticity itself. That is why open justice will increasingly require authenticity infrastructure. Court controlled screens, verified transcripts, clear provenance and rules against misleading edits or unauthorised production become essential. Not because courts fear criticism, but because the public is entitled to an accurate record of what the court actually did and said…We should embrace AI where it expands access and understanding while insisting that responsibility remains human and truth remains verifiable. That is how open justice can remain open and still remain trustworthy.”Story continues below this adTalking about his ‘personal aspiration’, he said, “I hope that by the time I demit office in September 2027, live streaming in the Supreme Court will become a settled and responsible norm inspiring courts across our nation to do the same.”Justice Nath is due to retire from the Supreme Court on September 23, 2027.