The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading and monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the concerned court registrars.
Market Context
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the interim order while issuing notice on a public interest litigation seeking safeguards against the misuse of live-streamed court proceedings through selective clipping, sensationalised circulation and commercial exploitation.
“As an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be no extraction, modification, monetisation, posting, reposting or uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other platforms without permission of the secretary general of the Supreme Court or the registrar general of the jurisdictional high courts,” the bench directed.
The court clarified that the embargo would not apply to news reporting of court proceedings and, directed the Supreme Court and all high courts to display the order on their websites.
The order came on a plea by journalist Harshita Grover seeking guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing and monetisation of courtroom recordings. The petition argues that while live-streaming advances transparency, the absence of safeguards has enabled courtroom exchanges to be taken out of context and circulated for sensationalism and commercial gain.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, said the challenge was not to live-streaming itself but to the rampant misuse of edited clips on social media. Referring to the recent disruption before Justice KV Viswanathan’s bench, where papers were allegedly hurled and abusive language was used, Singh submitted that clipped videos of such incidents were being widely circulated, trivialising judicial proceedings.
The CJI also expressed concern over distorted reporting, remarking that statements had recently been attributed to him that he had never made.
The petition states that it does not seek to curtail open justice or fair reporting, but only seeks safeguards against the unauthorised clipping, distortion and commercial exploitation of judicial recordings.
Competitor Comparison
The bench agreed that regulating digital content had become “one of the biggest challenges” in the present era, adding that virtual hearing links were often shared indiscriminately.
Supporting the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned that artificial intelligence had heightened the risks of manipulation of courtroom videos.
“There are AI tools. With the same lip movement, my and your lordships’ words can be changed in our respective voices,” said Mehta, cautioning that edited clips were increasingly being used to create misleading narratives.
Future Forecast
Besides issuing notice to all high courts, the bench asked the Union government to identify the nodal ministries that would implement any future regulatory framework. It also sought reports from the high courts on the implementation of the Supreme Court’s live-streaming guidelines and the impact of continuous live-streaming.
