Top News

The Supreme Court has taken a stringent view on the recording and circulation of livestreamed court proceedings, directing that audio and video recordings of judicial hearings cannot be uploaded, reposted, edited, monetised or disseminated on social media or any other digital platform without prior permission from the concerned court.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, passed the interim order while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to regulate the livestreaming and circulation of court proceedings.

Prior Approval Mandatory For Sharing Court Proceedings

In its interim order, the court said, "There shall be no extraction, modification, dissemination, posting, re-posting, uploading or monetisation of audio/video recordings of the judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without the prior permission of the Registrar General of the concerned High Courts or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court."

The Bench made it clear that court proceedings cannot be posted or reposted on social media or any digital platform without permission. It also said recordings cannot be edited, selectively circulated or monetised.

Order Does Not Restrict News Reporting

The Supreme Court clarified that the directions do not apply to factual media reporting of court proceedings and should not be construed as a gag order.

Justice V Mohana also emphasised that the interim order is not a restriction on freedom of speech.

PIL Raised Concerns Over Viral Court Clips

The petition, filed by a journalist, argued that selective and decontextualised circulation of courtroom exchanges on social media was undermining the dignity of courts and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system.

'We Cannot Stop A Demon Which Is Out Of The Bag'

Explaining the intent behind the order, Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, "What we are stopping is video recording and uploading of video recordings. We have also said that if any livestreaming or audio-visual is to be shown, it should be with permission of the Secretary General and Registrar General of the High Court."

Responding to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that platforms such as Facebook and Instagram were flooded with courtroom clips, Justice Bagchi observed, "We cannot stop a demon which is out of the bag."

'Court Cannot Be A 24x7 Entertainment Channel'

Justice Bagchi also said virtual access to court proceedings requires regulation.

"We should ensure limited access and therefore restrict livestream itself. Parties must expressly make a prayer that 'I want to see'. It cannot be a 24x7 entertainment channel."

He added that virtual hearing links are often shared indiscriminately and need to be regulated.

Notices Issued To Centre, Meta, X

Along with the interim order, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Central government, Meta, X and other social media platforms, asking them to respond on the circulation of court proceeding videos online.

The Bench also said that other social media platforms should be impleaded as parties in the matter.

AI Misuse Flagged Before Court

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, supported livestreaming but referred to a recent incident in which a petitioner allegedly threw papers at the Bench and abused the Chief Justice of India, with videos later going viral.

"It has become a joke," Singh said.

Supporting the submissions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned of the potential misuse of artificial intelligence.

"With AI tools, judges' or lawyers' words can be changed and uploaded on social media," he said.

CJI Says Remarks Were Misreported

Chief Justice Surya Kant said his own observations had been misrepresented in media reports.

"In the print forum, I have already experienced it. What I never said was thrust upon me by these people," he remarked.

The Chief Justice also dismissed as "reckless" reports claiming that he had refused an urgent hearing on a plea challenging the July 20 police action against students.

Clarifying the record, he said no such petition had been filed.

"In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter was filed, and the media is absolutely free from all responsibility and falsely reporting that the Chief Justice refused to list the matter."

He further said, "Till 10 am in the morning, not a single page has been filed. It was one representation... sent by Mishra or someone. How can I treat the representation as a writ petition? And people start recklessly reporting this," the Chief Justice said while hearing urgent mentions on Friday.