Supreme Court Mutes Live Stream During Mentioning Of Urgent Cases

In an unusual development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday saw the audio of its live stream muted during the mentioning of urgent cases by lawyers.

The audio on the live video feed was switched off for the period when lawyers mentioned fresh matters before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, preventing the public and the media from hearing lawyers' requests for urgent listings and the court's oral responses.

Mentioning is part of the morning court routine where lawyers seek urgent listing of cases from the Chief Justice of India. During these exchanges, the CJI decides whether a case merits urgent listing and may make brief oral observations while fixing a hearing date or declining immediate listing.

In recent months, several politically significant cases have been mentioned before the CJI, with the court's remarks during these interactions widely reported even before the matters were formally heard.

Read | "Demon Out Of Bag": Top Court Bans Recording, Sharing Videos From Proceedings

The decision to mute the audio comes days after CJI Surya Kant observed that mentioning of urgent matters is an "administrative" exercise rather than a judicial proceeding and, therefore, should not be reported.

Recently, the CJI refused a lawyer's plea for urgent hearing of his request for suo motu action against the Delhi Police over action taken on student protesters.

CJI Surya Kant's oral remarks during the exchange - "don't waste our time and yours" and "we don't want to watch any videos" - sparked a controversy.

Chief Justice Surya Kant later lamented that his words were twisted. "I have already experienced it. What I never said was thrust upon me by these people," CJI Kant had said earlier.

The CJI dismissed as "reckless" media reports that he had denied urgent hearing on a plea challenging the July 20 police action against students, saying it was only a representation and not a petition. No such petition was filed, he stated.

Later, the Supreme Court listed the petition and made strong observations on police action during the hearings.

Recently, the court had also banned the recording and circulation of videos of court proceedings on social media, saying that the court "can't be a 24x7 entertainment channel".

The Supreme Court had clarified that the order has no effect on news reporting of court proceedings and should not be taken as a gag order.