1.Whatever happens from the seat of justice, people have a right to know. Video recording of court proceedings, live streaming, preservation of such records, and access to such records by lawyers, litigants, and the public at large are essential ingredients of the very right to freedom of speech and expression, the most precious of all fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court, entertaining a so-called PIL, has banned the circulation of video clips of court proceedings.

2. The right to dissent is the core of democracy. Courts are no exception. There is a concept that a judgment can be criticised, not the judges. Whether even that concept is relevant today is a debatable issue.I am not criticising the judges, only the decision, primarily for two reasons.
3. First, we, as citizens, have every right to know whatever happens from the seat of justice. Nobody can deny it. Assuming it can be denied, that can only be by means of a law enacted by the competent legislature. Courts have no power to enact laws.
   The order of the Supreme Court, so too the hundreds of judgments and orders of the Supreme Court rendered in so-called PILs, will not bind us, the citizens, since we are not parties to the proceedings. That nobody is bound by a judgment to which he is not a party is a fundamental principle of law. This legal principle is known in Latin as res inter alios, to use the short form.
4. Nullum crimen sine lege—nothing is an offence unless the law provides for it—is a fundamental principle of law. So too, nulla poena sine lege—no punishment unless the law provides for it—is a fundamental principle of law.

5.We, the citizens, are not bound by the said order of the Supreme Court rendered behind our back, and violation of the order can invite no consequence in law.

6. The whole so-called jurisprudence of PIL is born of ignorance of the fundamental principle of law that, in matters concerning the public, the court has no jurisdiction because the court cannot hear the public at large. The record of a court binds only the parties before it and none else. The record of Parliament binds all because we are all symbolically present in Parliament, and it is with our consent that laws are enacted.

6.The PIL jurisprudence and the so-called basic structure theory are founded on ignorance of fundamental principles of jurisprudence.
Look who appeared for the PIL petitioner: the very same high-profile lawyer who said on a TV channel that a suit would lie against China for COVID.

7.Before parting, I must add that one can take advantage of a judgment to which one is not a party—that is called a judgment in rem. In a suit between husband and wife for divorce, where divorce is granted, the judgment is in rem; where it is denied, it is in personam. When divorce is granted, it alters the status of the parties, and third parties can take advantage of the judgment and enter into a marital relationship.
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment in M/s Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board, said that all judgments in rem operate as precedents under Article 141—a grave error. To keep this article brief, I refrain from elaborating.

8.Lex injusta non est lex—an unjust law is no law—is a fundamental principle of law. There is no duty to obey unjust laws. Even Christ violated the Sabbath. So too Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Krishna Iyer, Thoreau, to name a few great souls.