New Delhi:
Terming the unregulated dissemination of recordings of court proceedings on social media as a “demon out of the bag,” the Supreme Court has banned the posting or uploading of audio-video recordings of court proceedings on social media without the prior permission of the concerned court.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed an interim order on a PIL seeking to restrain livestreaming and video circulation of court proceedings.
“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 order stated.
The Supreme Court clarified that the order has no effect on news reporting of court proceedings and should not be taken as a gag order.
The petition filed by a journalist contended that selective and decontextualised circulation of courtroom exchanges is undermining the dignity of courts and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Justice Bagchi clarified: “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 submissions made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that Facebook and Instagram are full of such clips where lawyers try to show what they argued, Justice Bagchi said: “We cannot stop a demon which is out of the bag.”
Stating that a court cannot be a 24×7 entertainment channel, Justice Bagchi said: “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 24×7 entertainment channel.”
He also noted that online access links granted for virtual hearings are often shared indiscriminately and said such access also requires regulation.
The court also issued notice to Meta, X and other social media intermediaries over circulation of court videos.
Justice V Mohana also clarified that it is not a gag order on freedom of speech.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who appeared for the petitioner, while supporting livestreaming of proceedings, flagged an incident a few days ago where a petitioner threw papers at the bench and abused the CJI. Videos of the incident went viral.
“It has become a joke,” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, backing Singh’s submissions, also flagged the possibility of misuse of AI.
“With AI tools, judges’ or lawyers’ words can be changed and uploaded on social media,” he pointed out.
Chief Justice Surya Kant also pointed out how his words have been twisted.
“In the print forum, I have already experienced it. What I never said was thrust upon me by these people,” CJI Kant remarked.
The CJI dismissed as “reckless” media reports that he had denied urgent hearing on a plea challenging the July 20 police action against students, saying it was only a representation and not a petition.
No such petition was filed, he stated.
“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 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 CJI said while lawyers were mentioning their cases for urgent listing on Friday.