The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a lawyer's plea against social media intermediaries and news portals for circulation of audio-video clips of his arguments in Court. The Court granted him liberty to approach the social media platforms seeking take down of the clips.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the plea of a lawyer who apparently offered to furnish his bar license as surety for his father's bail. He was aggrieved by the publication of audio-video recordings of his appearance in the matter on digital platforms/social media.

The petitioner sought directions to certain news portals and 'X', Google, Meta etc. for takedown/deletion of the posts related to his appearance. He also sought measures to prevent leak or circulation of the audio-video clips of judicial proceedings on dark web and other illicit digital channels.

Initially, the bench asked the petitioner's counsel why the petitioner wished to "hide" and "shy away". "If you are so brave, that you can abuse in open court, you can use all these chosen words of your choice, why do you want to hide?" CJI Kant remarked.

The Court also noted that the videos were published before the Court's order in the Harshita Grover case which banned the uploading of Court clips.

The CJI alsoobserved that the published posts were not alleged to have been doctored or generated using AI.

"You are not saying that they (news portals) have used AI or something to harm your reputation or cause damage...Suppose this proceeding is not supposed to be commercially encashed, but assuming some channel puts this recording and starts utilizing...they may be in contempt...but unless they are adding some words which you have never spoken or they are adding some attribution to the bench which we have never spoken - that would be a more offending situation. Because then they are indulging in criminal activity. That will require a very serious view. Other thing(commercial exploitation) is in our domain", the CJI said.

Justice Bagchi on the other hand noted that the petitioner had not exhausted other legal remedies before approaching the Court. The judge suggested that the petitioner approach the social media intermediaries for takedown/deletion of the content objected to.

"Take steps for takedown with service providers [social media intermediaries]. It's an in personam damage. If the takedown orders are not complied with, come to us. You must exhaust your legal remedies. Law gives remedies in respect of impermissible publications in digital domain. You have a post in violation of court order, give them intimation. This is a premature petition."

At this point, the petitioner's counsel pointed out that the directions in Harshita Grover case barred dissemination of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings with effect from July 24 however the posts circulating about the petitioner pertained to a hearing on July 2 and were posted a month later. He further claimed that since news portals were circulating the clips, social media intermediaries could make an excuse, considering that the directions issued by the court were to news portals, not social media intermediaries.

In this regard, Justice Bagchi said that the bench has consciously not issued directions qua social media intermediaries because Section 69A of the Information Technology Act takes care of the issue. "When we make a declaration of law, it becomes a prohibition in the publication and circulation by an intermediary. Any action in breach of that is an act in personam, for which we are again requesting you to take necessary steps."

At last, the bench passed an order granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the court again if the recourse with social media intermediaries does not lead to resolution of his grievance. Insofar as it was requested that the petitioner be allowed to request the social media intermediaries to remove audio-video clips of all judicial proceedings across the country, the bench declined.

The petition was filed through AoR Vishal Arun Mishra.

Case Title: BHANU PRATAP SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1137/2026