“A number of observations made throughout judicial proceedings have been reported out of context on social media platforms.The observations have been unintentional and never meant to harm any particular person or any part of society. If such observations damage any particular person or any part of society or group, I categorical my honest regrets,” Justice Srishananda stated.
The decide stated the feedback in query weren’t directed on the lady advocate, however her consumer. He stated he would have clarified this to the advocate involved had she been current in courtroom.
Senior advocate Vivek Subbareddy, the president of the Advocates’ Affiliation of Bengaluru, who was current in courtroom, stated judgments rendered by Justice Srishananda have been wonderful, “however lordships, these side-‘kathas’ and ‘upakathas’ throughout listening to are affecting attorneys too when these are live-streamed (sic)”. At this juncture, Justice Srishananda stated he would cease them.
Advocates’ Affiliation of Bengaluru office-bearers identified that YouTubers posting clips of live-streaming of courtroom proceedings with improper and deceptive headlines and tag strains have been affecting attorneys. The registrar normal and registrar judicial must management such YouTubers, they added.
