The Supreme Court on Monday said it will have its own “platform” to live-stream its proceedings and the use of YouTube for the purpose is temporary.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit said this when former BJP leader K.N. Govindacharya's counsel argued that the copyright of apex court proceedings cannot be surrendered to private platforms like YouTube.
“YouTube has clearly sought the copyright over the webcast,” lawyer Virag Gupta told the bench that also comprised Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and J.B. Pardiwala.
“These are the initial stages. We will certainly have our own platforms...We will take care of that (copyright issue),” the CJI said and listed Mr. Govindacharya's interim plea for hearing on October 17.
Also Read | Should Supreme Court proceedings be live-streamed?
Referring to a 2018 judgement, the lawyer said it was held that “the copyright over all the material recorded and broadcast in this court shall vest with this court only”.
The lawyer also referred to the terms of use of YouTube and said this private platform also gets the copyright.
In a unanimous decision taken by the recent full court meeting headed by the CJI, the apex court decided to live-stream proceedings of all constitution bench hearings from September 27, almost four years after a path-breaking verdict in this regard was delivered in 2018.
Also Read | Live-streaming of court proceedings on the brink of becoming a reality: SC judge
The apex court may live-stream proceedings through YouTube and later host them on its server, sources had said. People would be able to access proceedings of the apex court on their cell phones, laptops, and computers without any hassle.
On August 26, for the first time since its inception, the Supreme Court live-streamed proceedings of a bench headed by then Chief Justice (since retired) N.V. Ramana through a webcast portal. It was a ceremonial proceeding as Justice Ramana was to demit office that day.
Several important cases are to be heard by five-judge constitution benches of the apex court. These include the validity of the 103rd constitution amendment granting 10 per cent quota to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act.
