This landmark and recent judgment of the Supreme Court is a transformative judgment as through this judgment the Supreme Court of India opened its doors for live streaming of proceedings having some constitutional and national importance except in some matters which shall be discussed later in the analysis. This judgment embarks upon itself the concept of constitutionalism. Every citizen of Indian is guaranteed freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which includes right to know and receive information. The present case begins with the filing of a petition filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising seeking from the court, a declaration having effect of permitting live court proceedings of cases having national and constitutional importance and further to issue relevant directions for making the infrastructure of the Court efficient to live court proceedings. Learned Attorney General of India, Mr. KK Venugopal, responding to the said petition thus submitted certain set of guidelines and his suggestions necessary for live court proceedings. The Court in the present case heavily relied upon the suggestions of AGI and the issued guidelines of the court in the present case are replica of suggestions by learned AGI. In the present analysis the author would try to critically examine the ruling of the Supreme Court in the present judgment. The author would look upon the fallacies that may be warranted in terms of the implementation of the judgment by various subordinate courts. Moreover, the author would be commenting upon the efficiency of the judgment in terms of the contemporary situations. For the purpose of this case comment the author would be pursuing a doctrinal research analyzing the main texts of the present judgment and other relevant available literature in the field.