On one end, the Supreme Court seeks to build more transparency and boldly vouches for the much-idealized public accountability, but on the other, it speaks confusion in the statements of the judges of the respectable court. Sticking to theoretical standards must not come with ifs and buts. If live-streaming ensures we are setting good precedents for the public’s right to know, why is it then that the SC will reserve the right not to livestream certain proceedings?

If there are concerns around the misuse of the court pulpit for fueling populist sentiment, what are the exact parameters on which the decision to livestream or not will rest? The people need to know. So far, it seems the judges want to reserve discretion in this matter, but such discretions carry a tendency for abuse of power. Empowering the public means letting go of absolute power and creating systems that protect against over-accumulation of power.

If the Court wants to make a distinction, the measures and motivations for it must be set out clearly so that one day, people do not wake up to find out that the specific proceeding they were eager to hear will not be live-streamed from the courtroom. Yes, live-streaming is a fairly new practice in Pakistan’s judiciary, and it will take some time to define its scope and regulate it, but it is essential that the public asks the right questions at the right time because they are direct stakeholders in this matter.

The implementation of the livestreaming policy remains uncertain for now. There is clearly a divide within, which is natural because the matter is not fully settled yet. Discretionary restrictions to prevent populist disruption are necessary, but an open-ended policy based on “necessity” does not foster trust, nor does it lead to certainty. The Court must, therefore, define under what circumstances proceedings can be livestreamed and under which they can be restricted.