•Supreme Court

Judicial •High Courts

System of •Subordinate Courts
India •Tribunals
COMPLETED SO FAR IN THIS LECTURE

Introduction to Judicial System in India Qualifications of Judges

Appointment of Judges of Supreme Resignation, Removal of Judges,

Court and Collegium System Independence of Judges

Acting Chief Justice, Ad Hoc Judges

and Retired Judges
Qualification
for- Supreme
Court Judge
• Five years as a
judge of HC or
• 10 Years as an
advocate of a high
court or
• A distinguished
jurist in the opinion
of president
By writing to
president
 can be removed from his Office by an order of the
president.

proved misbehavior or incapacity.

Removal of Judges
only after an address by Parliament has been presented
to him in the same session for such removal.

The address must be supported by a special majority of

each House of Parliament
The Judges Enquiry Act (1968):
1. signed by 100 members – LS
2. 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha)
2. The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to
admit it.
3. constitute a three-member committee to investigate into the
charges.
4. (a) the chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court,
(b) a chief justice of a high court, and
(c) a distinguished jurist.
5. the House can take up the consideration of the motion.
6. by special majority, an address is presented to the president
for removal of the judge.
7. Finally, the president passes an order removing the judge.
 Comparison with Other Countries: Removal of Judges
United States: Switzerland: 
England: England there is Ground: US it is the judicial Judges are removed on the basis of
no such majority specified. misconduct by which a Judge misconduct or incapability.  A
in India, there are can be removed. Judicial Committee is set up for the
provisions for investigation After the motion is passed in investigation of the Judge and it
of the Judge whereas both the Houses by the two- submits a report to the Federal
there are no such third majority then it is Assembly which may or may not
addressed to the Governor for remove the Judge, it depends on
provisions in England. the Assembly.
removal of the Judge.

Russia: In Russia, the Supreme Court Judge is
removed on the grounds of non-performance or
undue performance in his/her official work
according to the country’s federal Constitutional
laws or does anything against the laws of the
country, whereas we know in India it is incapacity or
misbehaviour.
Canada: In Canada, the Canadian Judicial council
investigates the alleged federally appointed Judge for
misconduct. After investigating, the Council may
recommend the Minister of Justice for the removal of the
alleged Judge. The minister then gets the approval of both
the Houses i.e.  House of Commons and Senate before he
removes the Judge.
Process of Removal of Judges
 Consider the following statements: (2019)
1.The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be
rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act
1968.
2.The Constitution of India defines and gives details or what constitutes
‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of
India.
Previous 3.The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme
Court of India are given in 4 the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Year 4.If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the
law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and
Question supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less
than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2
(b) 3 only
(c) 3 and 4 only
(d) 1, 3 and 4
 Ban on future Conduct of Judges
Oath practice
cannot be
Discussed:,

To secure the Salaries: and Expenses Charged

independence Fixed Tenure Retirement on Consolidated
Fund:
fixed by law
of Judges
Court of
record
Acting Chief Justice

The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme

Court as an acting Chief Justice of India when:

1. the office of Chief Justice of India is vacant; or

2. the Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent;

or

3. the Chief Justice of India is unable to perform

the duties of his office.
 Ad-hoc Judges

When there is a lack of quorum

the Chief Justice of India can appoint

consultation with the chief justice of the

High Court concerned is required

and the previous consent of the president

is also needed.
Availing service of Retired Judges
The chief justice of India can
request a retired judge of the
Supreme Court or a retired
judge of a high court to act as
a judge of the Supreme Court
for a temporary period.
Such a judge is
entitled to such
allowances as the
president may
determine.
Only those persons who previous consent of
are duly qualified for the president and
appointment as a judge also of the person to
of the Supreme Court
be so appointed.
He will also enjoy all
But, he will not
the jurisdiction,
otherwise be deemed
powers and privileges
to be a judge of the
of a judge of Supreme
Supreme Court.
Court.
 Please ask
your queries in
Doubt Section

Thank You!!
Completed So far In this lecture

Qualifications of Judges Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High

Courts

Resignation, Removal of Judges, Tribunals and issues associated with

Independence of Judges Tribunals

Acting Chief Justice, Ad Hoc Judges All about courts in one table (Most
and Retired Judges Important for Prelims)
Original Jurisdiction

decides the disputes between different units of the Indian

Federation
• Between the Centre and one or more states; or
• Between the Centre and any state or states on one side and one or
more other states on the other side; or
• Between two or more states.

In the above federal disputes, the Supreme Court has

exclusive original jurisdiction.
 (a) A dispute arising out of any pre-Constitution
treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad
or other similar instrument
Original (b) A dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement,
jurisdiction etc., which specifically provides that the said
does not jurisdiction does not extent to such a dispute.
(c) Inter-state water disputes.
extend to the
(d) Matters referred to the Finance Commission.
following:
(e) Adjustment of certain expenses and pensions
between the Centre and the states.
(f) Ordinary dispute of Commercial nature
between the Centre and the state
 Acts as the highest court of appeal
In Constitutional Matters
• A matter of law which requires interpretation of
constitution:- , an appeal can be made to the
Supreme Court against the judgement of a high
court
Appellate
Jurisdiction In civil cases,
an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any
judgement of a high court if the high court
certifies–
(i) that the case involves a substantial question of
law of general importance; and
 In Criminal Matters
(i) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused
person and sentenced him to death; or

(ii) has taken before itself any case from any subordinate court and
convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or

(iii) certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
Court.

In the first two cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court as a

matter of right (ie, without any certificate of the high court).
 On any question of law or fact of public
When?
On any dispute arising out of any pre-constitution
importance which has arisen, or which is likely to
treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, etc.
arise.

Advisory
Jurisdiction Can Supreme Court refuse to give advice?
(Article 143) In first case it may refuse to tender advice, but in second case it must give opinion.

In both the cases, the opinion expressed by the

Supreme Court is only advisory and not binding.
6. Power of Judicial Review

7. Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution

8. Other Powers:

• decides the disputes regarding the election of the president and the vice president. In this regard,
it has the original, exclusive and final authority.
• enquires into the conduct and behavior of the chairman and members of the Union Public Service
Commission on a reference made by the president. If it finds them guilty of misbehavior, it can
recommend to the president for their removal.
• has power to review its own judgement or order. Thus, it is not bound by its previous decision and
can depart from it in the interest of justice or community welfare.
• authorized to withdraw the cases pending before the high courts and dispose them by itself.
• Its law is binding on all courts in India. Its decree or order is enforceable throughout the country.
All authorities (civil and judicial) in the country should act in aid of the Supreme Court.
• power of judicial superintendence and control over all the courts and tribunals functioning in the
entire country.
Special Leave Petition
According to Article 136, an
appeal can be made to the
Supreme Court directly from
any order, decision, decree,
judgment, etc given by any
court or tribunal in India.
This power of the Supreme
Court under Article 136 is
discretionary, and Hon’ble
Court may or may not allow
special leave to appeal to
any person.
 It is a discretionary
powers to review Subject to to the Rules
its own judgments made by the Supreme
Court under Article
under Article 137 145, or as prescribed
of the by parliament.
Constitution.
Review
Petition
Within 30 days
Referred to same
from the
court/Bench
judgment or order
 In case of violation of principles of natural
justice.

The curative petition shall be certified by a

senior advocate.
Curative
Petition The curative petition is then circulated to the
three senior most judges and also to the judges
who passed the impugned judgment.
If majority of the judges agree that the matter
needs hearing, then it would be sent to the
same bench.
 With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following
statements: (2021)
1.  Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called
back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice
of India with prior permission of the President of India.
2.  A High Court in India has the power to review its own

Previous judgement as the Supreme Court does.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
year question (a)   1 Only
(b)  2 Only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
 • 1862: High courts were set up at Calcutta,
Bombay and Madras.
• Fourth High Court at Allahabad in 1866.
• The Constitution of India provides for a high
court for each state.
The High • Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 authorized
Courts the Parliament to establish a common high
court for two or more states or for two or
more states and a union territory.
• Articles 214 to 231 in Part VI of the
Constitution deal with the organization,
independence, jurisdiction, powers,
procedures and so on of the high courts.
 1. Matters of admiralty and contempt of court.
2. Disputes relating to the election of members
of Parliament and state legislatures.
3. Regarding revenue matter or an act ordered or
done in revenue collection.
4. Enforcement of fundamental rights of
citizens.
Original 5. Cases ordered to be transferred from a
Jurisdiction subordinate court involving the interpretation
of the Constitution to its own file.
6. The four high courts (i.e., Calcutta, Bombay,
Madras and Delhi High Courts) have original
civil jurisdiction in cases of higher value.
 Other Jurisdiction of High Courts
Appellate Jurisdiction: hears appeals against the judgements of subordinate courts functioning in its
territorial jurisdiction.
Supervisory Jurisdiction: high court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals
functioning in its territorial jurisdiction (except military courts or tribunals).
Control over Subordinate Courts: a high court has an administrative control and other powers over them:
• consulted by the governor in the matters of appointment, posting and promotion of district judges
• deals with the matters of posting, promotion, grant of leave, transfers and discipline of the
members of the judicial service of the state.
• can withdraw a case pending in a subordinate court if it involves a substantial question of law that
require the interpretation of the Constitution.
• Its law is binding on all subordinate courts functioning within its territorial jurisdiction
Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Courts
Completed So far In this lecture

Qualifications of Judges, Resignation, All about courts in one table (Most

Removal of Judges, Independence of Important for Prelims)
Judges

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Tribunals and issues associated with

High Courts Tribunals

Acting Chief Justice, Ad Hoc Judges

and Retired Judges
 Consider the following statements: (2019)
1.The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges
(Inquiry) Act 1968.
2.The Constitution of India defines and gives details or what
constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the
Supreme Court of India.
3.The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the
Supreme Court of India are given in 4 the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
4.If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for
Previous Year voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of
the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of
that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that
House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 (b) 3 only
(c) 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 3 and 4
 In India, Judicial Review implies: (2017)
(a) the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon
the constitutionality of laws and executive orders.
(b) the power of the Judiciary to question the
wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures.
(c) the power of the Judiciary to review all the
legislative enactments before they are assented to
Previous Year by the President.
(d) the power of the Judiciary to review its own
judgements given earlier in similar or different
cases.
 The original Constitution did not contain
provisions with respect to tribunals.

Added by 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act,

1976 in Part XIV-A.

Tribunals consists of only two Articles–

Article 323 A dealing with administrative

tribunals and Article

323 B dealing with tribunals for other matters.

 Administrative Tribunals

• It has original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service

matters of public servants covered by it.
• Its jurisdiction extends to the all-India services, the Central civil services,
civil posts under the Centre and civilian employees of defence services.
• However, the members of the defense forces, officers and servants of the
Supreme Court and the secretarial staff of the Parliament are not
covered by it.
• appointment of Members in CAT is made on the basis of
recommendations of a high powered selection committee chaired by a
sitting Judge of Supreme Court who is nominated by the Chief Justice of
India.
 Article 323-A : Parliament - to provide for the establishment
of administrative tribunals for

Parliament has passed the Administrative Tribunals Act in

1985.

Administrativ It provides for establishment of Central Administrative

e Tribunals Tribunal (CAT).

set up in 1985 with the principal bench at Delhi and

additional benches in different states. At present, it has 17
regular benches, 15 of which operate at the principal seats
of high courts and the remaining two at Jaipur and Lucknow
 Tribunals for Other Matters : Article 323-B

Under Article 323 B, the Parliament and the state legislatures are authorised to provide for
the establishment of tribunals for the adjudication of disputes relating to the following
matters:
(a) Taxation
(b) Foreign exchange, import and export
(c) Industrial and labour
(d) Land reforms
(e) Ceiling on urban property
(f) Elections to Parliament and state legislatures
(g) Food stuffs
(h) Rent and tenancy rights
Problems with Tribunal System in
India
Lack of Independence:

• the system of appointment through selection

committees severely affects the independence
of tribunals.

Problem of Non-Uniformity:

• non-uniformity across tribunals with respect to

service conditions, tenure of members, varying
nodal ministries in charge of different
tribunals.

Executive Interference:

• provision of finances, infrastructure, personnel

and other resources required for day-to-day
functioning of the tribunals.
 Restructuring the tribunals system
• The Centre has abolished several appellate tribunals and authorities and
transferred their jurisdiction to other existing judicial bodies through the
Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance
2021 .
• What happens to cases pending before the tribunals dissolved? These cases
will be transferred to High Courts or commercial civil courts immediately
• Grounds of Challenge:
• bypassing the usual legislative process,
• without any stakeholder consultation.
• In Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019), the supreme court had directed
to conduct a judicial impact assessment before taking such a step.
 Objective: an independent umbrella body to supervise
the functioning of tribunals, appointment of and
disciplinary proceedings against members, and to take
care of administrative and infrastructural needs of the
tribunals.
Ensuring Separation of Powers: . A ‘corporatised’
National structure of NTC with a Board, a CEO and a
Tribunal Secretariat will allow it to scale up its services and
provide requisite administrative support to all
Commission tribunals across the country.
Independent Recruiting of Tribunal Members: NTC could
function as an independent recruitment body to develop
and operationalise the procedure for disciplinary
proceedings and appointment of tribunal members
 Way Forward:
• Constitutional Backing to NTC: the NTC must be established vide a
constitutional amendment or be backed by a statute that guarantees it
functional, operational and financial independence.
• Doing Away With Re-Appointments: The NTC must also do away with the
system of re-appointment of tribunal members due to its impact on the
independence of the tribunal.
• Transition Plan from present System: As the Finance Ministry has been vested
with the responsibility for tribunals until the NTC is constituted, it should come
up with a transition plan.
Establishing the NTC will definitely entail a radical restructuring of the present
tribunals system.
Previous Years Question
How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts?
In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in
India?  (2018)
 Supreme Court High Courts Subordinate Courts Tribunals

{A. 124(1)}- There shall be {Article 214}- There shall Part XIV A- Added by
a supreme court of India- be a high court for each 42nd Amendment Act
Consisting of CJ and Seven state. 1976
Established Other Judges (Now 30 {Article 323A}
Under other Judges) Administrative Tribunals
{Article 323B}- Tribunals
Max Strength- 34 for Other Matters

By president under his By president under his {Article 233}- • Administrative

warrant and seal after warrant and seal after For District Judge- By Tribunals may be
consultation from- consultation from- Governor in consultation appointed by the
• Original Const- from • Original Const- from with the concerned High parliament for Union
such judges as such judges as Court or states.
Appointment president may deem fit president may deem {Article 234}- Persons
Of Judges • 99th Amendment- fit below district judge- by the • Other tribunals may
consultation for NJAC- • 99th Amendment- governor in consultation be appointed by the
but in case of Advocate consultation for NJAC- with HC and State Service appropriate
on Record V. UOI but in case of Commission legislatures
(2016) Advocate on Record V.
UOI (2016)
 Supreme Court High Courts Subordinate Courts Tribunals

65 Years of age 62 years of age no constitutional As may be

prescription of the age of determined by the
Additional/Acting retirement appropriate
Judge- for a term of two controlled by the relevant legislature
Tenure years or attaining age of rules obtaining in the
62 years different States and Union
Territories

• Five years as a judge of • 10 years of judicial

HC or office
• 10 Years as an advocate • At least 10 years as
Qualification of a high court or an advocate of a high
• A distinguished jurist in court
the opinion of president

By writing to president By Writing to President By writing to governor As may be

determined by the
Resign appropriate
legislature
By President- Given under 3rd By Governor- Given
Oath Schedule under 3rd Schedule
 Supreme Court High Courts Subordinate Courts Tribunals
• By an order of the • By an order of the As may be
president president determined by
• After an address of each • After an address of each the
house of parliament house of parliament appropriate
• Passed with special • Passed with special legislature
Removal majority majority
• And such address is • And such address is
presented to president in presented to president in
same session same session

• Five years as a • 10 years of District Judge:

• Person who is not
judge of HC or judicial office already in service of
• 10 Years as an At least 10 years Govt.
advocate of a high • • Not less than 7 years as
Qualification court or as an advocate advocate or pleader and
of a high court • Recommended by HC
• A distinguished Below DJ:
jurist in the opinion As per rules made by
governor in consultation
of president with HC and SPSC
Thank You!!
Please ask your
queries in Doubt
Section
Independence
of Judiciary
Why Independence of judiciary is important?

To ensure Principle Upholding the

Ensure there is no
of separation of constitutional
bias- Govt itself is
power and checks objectives and
and balances. the litigant.
philosophies

Maintain and
To preserve Rule of To preserve the
uphold the federal
Law. rights of the people
harmony
 Heavy Pendency of Cases:

• 4.52 Crores across India

• 27% rise in three years: An analysis of data on the National
Judicial Data Grid, a database of the Department of Justice,
shows that courts saw an increase of over 27% in pendency
between December 2019 and April 2022.

Areas of concerns
Concerns with Pendency of Cases:
in Indian Judicial
System • Justice delayed is justice denied
• Widens the trust deficit
• Wastage of time and resources
• Extra Judicial methods of solving the disputes

Rise of Undertrials:

• Undertrials accounted for 76% of the total inmates in around

1,300 prisons across the country.
 Causes Behinds Pendency of
Cases:
• Shortage of judges: vacancies increased from
18% to 21% across courts between 2010 and
2020- (38%) were vacant in High Courts.
• In current scenario India has 19 judges per
10 lakh people
Areas of concerns • Culture of adjournment
in Indian Judicial • Poor quality of investigation and prosecution
System

Rise of Undertrials:

• Undertrials accounted for 76% of the total

inmates in around 1,300 prisons across the
country.
 Issues in Appointment of Judges

• Both government and judiciary has not been able to draft

an effective MoP after fourth judge cases
• Lack of representation to all sections in judiciary including
women- (presently only 3 in Apex court)

Areas of concerns
Transfer of Judges of HC
in Indian Judicial
System • Before 1976: only 25--- In September 2021- 34
• Last four years 89 High Court judges have been
transferred.
• Consent of the High Court judge is not essential

Appointment of Retired Judges as

governors
 Increase population: Judges Ratio
• increase the judge to population ratio to 50 per
million.

(ADR) mechanisms

• Popularise Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR)

Remedies mechanisms so that people, instead of immediately
rushing to the court.

Hibernating Unnecessary PILs:

• Summary disposal of all ‘hibernating’ PILs – those

pending for more than 10 years before HCs – if they do
not concern a question of significant public policy or
law.
 Forum where disputes/cases pending in the court of law or at
pre-litigation stage are settled/ compromised amicably. Lok
Adalats have been given statutory status under the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987

Adalat is presided by a judicial officer, but he

is not sitting as a judge over there.

Lok Adalats
Award Final and Binding: No Appeals

But Litigation can start

 Judicial Activism
Colonial Effect and strict interpretation

Heavy restriction upon parliament

Landmark Keshava Nanda Bharti Case

Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain- Judicial Review as

basic structure
 The concept of judicial activism
originated and developed in the USA.

Defining This term was first coined in 1947 by Arthur

Schlesinger Jr., an American historian and
Judicial educator.

Activism Judicial activism is the practice in the judiciary of

protecting or expanding individual rights through
decisions that depart from established precedent, or
are independent of, or in opposition to supposed
constitutional or legislation intent
Factors To recover the lost
prestige of the apex
Inadequacies in the
functioning of
legislatures and
Behind the court.
executives.

Rise of Emergence of the

judicial Flexible interpretation
of the “rules of locus
concept of "Suo moto
Cognizance" and
Activism: standi"-Doctrine of
Standing.
"Epistolary
jurisdiction".
 limiting undue administrative discretion.

fill the legal vacuum

Positive Impact of expansion of rights and enforcement of

rights
Judicial Activism

in reconciling the permanent values of the

Constitution

improving and promoting

transparency,
 jurisdictional inflation

undue interference in
administration.

Adverse Impact of Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Judicial Activism

delays in the implementation of public

projects

Judicial Overreach
Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly
proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the
statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of
democracy. (2014)
 Background:

Livestreaming • In 2015, Apext court struck down NJAC and later also invited public
opinion on “how to improve collegium system?”.
Supreme Court • Received over 11,500 views from the public. The ensuing months saw
proceedings: A the Collegium publish its resolutions on the Supreme Court website.
• The Supreme Court in Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme
step closer to a
Court of India (2018) had ruled in favour of opening up the apex
stronger court through live-streaming.
democracy • It held that the live streaming proceedings are part of the right to
access justice under Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal
Liberty) of the Constitution
• Gujarat High Court was the first high court to livestream court
proceedings followed by Karnataka high court.
• In 2019, a Constitution Bench has also held that the Office of the
Chief Justice of India (CJI) was a 'public authority' under the RTI Act.
 Historically Indian Judicial System is based on system of open
courts. As Kautilya said in the Arthashastra, and during that
time, when judges delivered a judgment, they did so in an
open court.
Another cardinal principles of justice is: Justice should not only
be done, it should also be seen to be done.

Arguments
for will not just increase legal literacy but potentially enhance the
public’s continuous engagement with the Constitution and
laws.

de-congestion of courts and improving physical access to

courts for litigants who have to otherwise travel long distances
Recommendations of Attorney General of India
Recommended introducing
live streaming as a pilot iv. To ensure that v. To protect confidential
project in Court No.1, which victims, witnesses or or sensitive information,
defendants can depose including all matters
is the CJI’s court, and only in truthfully and without relating to sexual assault
Constitution Bench cases. any fear. and rape,

the A-G suggested that the vi. Matters where

court must retain the power to iii. Matters of publicity would be
withhold broadcasting, and to antithetical to the
also not permit it in cases National security, administration of
involving: justice, and

ii. Matters involving vii. Cases which may

i. Matrimonial interests of juveniles or provoke sentiments and
the protection and arouse passion and
matters, safety of the private life provoke enmity among
of the young offenders, communities.
Other Countries?
Australia: Live
or delayed
United States: Since Brazil: Since 2002, live video
broadcasting and audio broadcast of court
1955, audio recording
allowed but proceedings, including the
and transcripts of oral
the practices deliberations and voting
arguments has been process undertaken by the
and norms
allowed. judges in court, is allowed.
differ across
courts.

South Africa: Since 2017, the Canada: Proceedings are

United Kingdom: After 2005, broadcast live on Cable
Supreme Court of South Africa
proceedings are broadcast Parliamentary Affairs Channel,
has allowed the media to
live with a one-minute delay
on the court’s website, but
broadcast court proceedings accompanied by explanations
in criminal matters, as an of each case and the overall
coverage can be withdrawn
extension of the right to processes and powers of the
in sensitive appeals.
freedom of expression. court.
 With the advent of social media, every citizen became a
potential journalist

lack of editorial control has in fact meant informational

anarchy, with fake news and propaganda dominating
YouTube and social media feeds
Concerns

A 2018 paper by Felipe Lopez titled ‘Television and Judicial

Behavior: Lessons from the Brazilian Supreme Court’ that
studied the Brazilian Supreme Court concluded that justices
behave like politicians when given free television time, they
act to maximize their individual exposure.