The National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) co-convenor Anjali Bhardwaj and transparency activist Amrita Johri have moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the pending case concerning regulation of live-streaming and dissemination of court proceedings, contending that restrictions on sharing official court recordings should be narrowly tailored and must not undermine the constitutional principles of open justice, freedom of speech and the right to information.

The intervention application argues that the Supreme Court's interim order dated July 24, which prohibited extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting or hosting of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrars General of High Courts, has significant constitutional implications and requires reconsideration.

The applicants submit that while concerns regarding manipulation and misuse of court proceedings are legitimate, the solution lies in strengthening official live-streaming and archival mechanisms rather than imposing broad restrictions on citizens and the media.

“The principle of open courts is a constitutional guarantee woven into Article 21's guarantee of a fair, just and reasonable procedure. Open access to justice ensures that the judicial process remains answerable to the public and guards against arbitrariness,” the application states.

The application primarily raises three grounds. First, it argues that the order does not distinguish between good-faith and accurate reporting of court proceedings and malicious manipulation through morphed clips or misleading captions. Second, it contends that requiring prior permission for extraction or dissemination converts a constitutional right flowing from the openness of court proceedings into one dependent on administrative discretion, without prescribing any clear mechanism or standards. Third, it says the exemption for “recognised news outlets” is ambiguous because there is no statutory system of recognition for journalists and such a distinction would unfairly privilege institutional media over citizen journalists. IA- for cirulation.pdf

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), the applicants argue that live-streaming is an extension of the constitutional principle of open courts and access to justice. They also cite Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar (2021), where the Supreme Court refused to restrain media reporting of oral observations during hearings and recognised the role of evolving forms of media, including digital platforms, in disseminating information about court proceedings.

The intervention application also highlights the Supreme Court's own experience with live-streaming Constitution Bench proceedings since September 2022, noting that official YouTube broadcasts have significantly expanded public access to judicial proceedings and constitutional discourse. It argues that the Court should institutionalise official live-streaming and create a permanent digital archive of proceedings, enabling the public to verify the authenticity of excerpts circulated online.

According to the applicants, an official audio-visual record would serve as the most effective safeguard against distortion because any selectively edited or misleading clip could be checked against the complete recording. Instead of blanket prohibitions, they argue that misuse such as morphing, misleading editing or deliberate misrepresentation should be addressed through targeted legal action under existing laws.

The applicants have urged the Court to frame a legal framework that institutionalises official live-streaming and recording of judicial proceedings, creates a publicly accessible digital archive, clarifies that fair and accurate reporting and dissemination of official recordings remain protected, and regulates only deliberate misuse or misrepresentation through clear terms and conditions rather than a prior permission regime.

The application has been filed throug through Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D'Souza.

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