BREAKING| Supreme Court Bans Uploading & Sharing Of Audio-Video Recordings Of Court Hearings Without Prior Permission

The Supreme Court on Friday passed an interim order prohibiting the extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading or monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the concerned court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed an interim order to the effect that "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 Court clarified that the interim direction would not affect news reporting of court proceedings.

The order was passed while hearing a public interest litigation filed by journalist Harshita Grover seeking guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing, dissemination and monetisation of audiovisual recordings of court proceedings on digital platforms. The petition contends that selective and decontextualised circulation of courtroom exchanges is undermining the dignity of courts and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system.

The Bench issued notice on the petition and impleaded all High Courts. It directed the Union Government to place before the Court a proposal identifying the nodal ministries that could implement the reliefs sought in the petition. The Court also asked the High Courts to submit reports on the adoption of the Supreme Court's livestreaming guidelines and explain the impact of continuous livestreaming of proceedings.

Notice was also issued to social media intermediaries, including Meta and X.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that he had no objection to livestreaming of court proceedings but expressed concern over the misuse of edited clips circulating on social media.

"I personally don't see any problem with livestream," Singh submitted, while pointing to instances where selective clips of hearings had gone viral. Singh said that a clip from the recent ruckus created before the bench of Justice Viswanathan has become hugely viral, making the judiciary a joke before the lay people.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that regulating digital data had become one of the biggest challenges. He also called for rethinking on livestreaming, saying that it should be an "exception than a norm"

"Regulating data is one of the biggest challenges in digital space... so we should ensure limited access and therefore restrict livestream itself. Parties must expressly make a prayer that they want to see. It can't be a 24/7 entertainment channel by court," Justice Bagchi observed. He also noted that online access links granted for virtual hearings are often shared indiscriminately and said such access also required regulation.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the petitioner's request for interim protection. Flagging the dangers posed by artificial intelligence, he warned that edited courtroom videos could be manipulated to alter the words spoken by judges and lawyers while retaining authentic lip movements.

"Suppose your lordships are saying something to me and I am responding. There are AI tools. With the same lip movement, my and your lordships' words can be changed in our respective voices," Mehta submitted.

The SG also said that the clips from the livestream are selectively extracted, and a particular narrative is given, distorting the proceedings.

The CJI agreed that misinformation arising from distorted reporting was a growing concern. The CJI said that even in print media, some of his comments were distorted, and reiterated the observation made earlier today regarding the media reports on the plea concerning student protests.

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

Details of the petition

The petitioner argues that while livestreaming was introduced to advance transparency and the principle of open justice, the absence of safeguards has enabled courtroom recordings to be clipped, edited and circulated with misleading captions and sensational commentary, often for commercial gain.

The plea relies on several instances of alleged misuse of judicial recordings, including edited clips involving judges and advocates, and contends that unrestricted circulation of such material exposes judges, lawyers and litigants to trolling, reputational harm and distorted public narratives. It seeks the formulation of guidelines governing the recording, clipping, redistribution and monetisation of court proceedings while preserving open justice and fair reporting.

The petitioner is seeking the formulation of guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing, dissemination and monetisation of audiovisual recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and digital platforms, alleging that selective and decontextualised circulation of courtroom exchanges is undermining the dignity of courts and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system.

The petition, filed by journalist Harshita Grover under Article 32 of the Constitution, contends that while live-streaming and video conferencing of court proceedings were introduced to advance the principles of open justice and transparency, the absence of a regulatory framework has enabled widespread misuse of such recordings for sensationalism, misinformation and commercial gain.

The petitioner submits that isolated courtroom exchanges, oral observations and preliminary remarks are routinely extracted from lengthy hearings, circulated without factual or legal context, and accompanied by misleading captions, clickbait headlines and sensational commentary to maximise online engagement and advertising revenue. According to the petition, this exposes judges, advocates and litigants to trolling, vilification and reputational harm while creating distorted public narratives about judicial proceedings.

The plea clarifies that it does not seek to curtail the principle of open justice or fair reporting of court proceedings. Instead, it seeks "reasonable safeguards" against the unauthorised clipping, editing, dissemination and commercial exploitation of judicial recordings so that transparency is preserved without permitting distortion of court proceedings.

The petition refers to several instances to illustrate what it describes as a recurring problem. It cites the controversy surrounding remarks made by a Karnataka High Court judge in 2024, which were later clarified as having been reported out of context. It also refers to the Bar Council of India's March 2025 press release on unethical legal advertising and misleading social media promotions, as well as a July 2025 letter by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCORA) seeking guidelines on videography and social media content creation within Supreme Court premises.

The petitioner further points to instances where courtroom exchanges involving advocates were uploaded on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube with sensational captions, allegedly causing reputational damage to lawyers. It also relies on a Delhi High Court order directing the removal of an edited and selectively cropped court video, contending that such incidents demonstrate the misuse of judicial recordings to create misleading narratives about courts.

The plea also refers to the controversy surrounding oral observations made by the Chief Justice of India during proceedings on May 15, 2026, which were subsequently clarified by the CJI as having been misconstrued and taken out of context. According to the petition, the subsequent circulation of edited clips and social media campaigns demonstrated how fragmented extracts from court proceedings can be weaponised to ridicule constitutional institutions and portray the judiciary as biased.

Highlighting what it describes as the commercial exploitation of judicial material, the petition alleges that numerous YouTube channels and social media platforms generate advertising revenue, paid memberships and subscriptions by uploading edited courtroom clips designed to maximise views through controversy and sensationalism. It argues that judicial proceedings were made accessible to advance transparency and public understanding of the legal process, not to become revenue-generating digital content.

The petition also draws attention to the United Kingdom Supreme Court's copyright terms and conditions governing audiovisual recordings, submitting that similar safeguards should be introduced in India to prevent distortion and commercial misuse while preserving open justice.

Among its grounds, the petition contends that selective circulation of courtroom clips creates a real risk of prejudice to the administration of justice because oral observations during hearings are often tentative and intended only to test submissions. It argues that unrestricted clipping and monetisation encourage sensationalism, distort public understanding of judicial proceedings, expose judges and advocates to unwarranted criticism and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

The petitioner has sought directions from the Supreme Court to frame appropriate safeguards governing the recording, clipping, redistribution and monetisation of audiovisual recordings of judicial proceedings while preserving the principles of open justice and fair reporting.

For the petitioner: Dr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Md Imran Ahmad, Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Mr. Daksh Sachdeva, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Ms. Khushi, Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad and Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Advocates, instructed by Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate-on-Record.

Case : Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026