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 there shall be no extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting of the audio-video recording(s) of the judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India or the Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional High Courts."The Court clarified that the interim direction would not affect news reporting of court proceedings."However, it is clarified that this order shall have no bearing on the reporting of Court proceedings by recognized news outlets," the Court said.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 model 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.He pointed out that as per Regulation 9.2 of the 'Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings no person/entity (including print and electronic media, and social media platforms) other than an authorized person/entity shall record, share and/or disseminate live streamed proceedings or archival data. The model rules also stipulate that the live stream shall not, without the prior written authorisation of the Court, be reproduced, transmitted, uploaded, posted, modified, published, or re- published in any form. He requested for passing an interim order to enforce these model rules.Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that regulating digital data had become one of the biggest challenges. He also called for rethinking livestreaming, saying that it should be an "exception rather 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 petitionThe petitioner argues that while livestreaming was introduced to advance transparency and the principle of open...

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

Debby Jain

The Court clarified that the order will not affect news reporting of the judicial proceedings.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

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

Debby Jain

The Court clarified that the order will not affect news reporting of the judicial proceedings.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers