Arguments against

♤ The unwanted public gaze caused by live-streaming will tend to make judges subject to popular public opinion and accountable to the general public.

♤ The role of the judiciary cannot be equated with the roles of the legislature and the executive. The broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings may be good for ensuring accountability, this is not the case with the courts.

♤ The individuality of judges is more likely to become a subject of public debate through live streaming, creating problems of its own. The focus should be on the judgment delivered.

♤ There is a greater likelihood of lawyers aspiring to publicise themselves tend to address not only the judges but also the public watching them which will hamper their objectivity.

♤ Instead of live-streaming, audio and video recordings of court proceedings would reform the administration of justice. These can be used at the time of review or appeal of a case.