The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea filed by a lawyer seeking action against news portals and social media intermediaries for circulating a recording of his courtroom appearance [Bhanu Pratap Singh v. Union of India].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked the lawyer to first approach the concerned news portals and social media intermediaries for takedown of the videos under the Information Technology Act and Intermediary Rules.
“First avail the legal remedy. Give them a legal notice referring to the Court’s order dated July 24, 2026. State that they are required to conform to the Court’s directions, that their conduct attracts penal action and call upon them to act immediately,” said CJI Kant.
The lawyer told the Court that his video appearance before the Supreme Court was circulated by news portals on August 28, more than a month after the Court's July 24 order concerning unauthorised use of court proceedings. He further submitted that the circulation of the video would hamper his profession.
However, CJI Kant questioned the lawyer's reluctance to pursue legal remedies against those allegedly circulating the video.
“If you are brave enough to use abusive and chosen words and make such fierce allegations, why are you shy of it? These are people creating news. They are antisocial elements. Who invited them to create this nuisance?” said CJI Kant.
The July 24 order was passed in a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the unauthorised extraction, editing, circulation and commercial exploitation of audio-video recordings of court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms.
As an interim measure, the Court had directed that such recordings could not be extracted, modified, disseminated, posted, reposted, uploaded, transmitted, stored or hosted on digital platforms without prior permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the concerned High Court.
However, the Court had also clarified that the order would not affect news reporting of court proceedings.
During Wednesday hearing, the Court noted that the lawyer was not alleging that the recording had been fabricated or manipulated to misrepresent what had happened in court.
“You are not saying that they fabricated your video. You are not saying that they used AI or anything else to harm your reputation or cause damage,” said CJI Kant.
He then distinguished such alleged manipulation from the unauthorised commercial use of an actual recording of court proceedings.
“We understand if somebody commits contempt of our July 24 order. Suppose the live-streaming is going on and you are arguing before us. If a channel commercially exploits that exchange, it may be committing contempt...But if they add words which we never spoke or attribute something to the Bench which was never said, that is far more serious. They would then be indulging in a criminal act. It may amount to criminal contempt and would require very serious action,” explained CJI Kant.
“Unauthorised commercial exploitation despite our order falls in another domain,” he added.
The Court then directed the lawyer to first use the remedies available under the Information Technology Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules to seek removal of the videos.
“For proceedings already available on social media, take the necessary steps before the service providers and seek takedown orders,” said Justice Bagchi.
When the lawyer argued that the circulation of the video was by a reputed news portal, Justice Bagchi referred him to the statutory takedown mechanism.
“Are you aware of the takedown mechanism under the Information Technology Act? Take that step. If the takedown request is not complied with, come to us,” he said.
The lawyer then argued that the news portals and intermediaries could take the stand that there was no express direction against them in the July 24 order, as the prohibition concerned proceedings circulated after the order.
CJI Kant rejected that distinction, saying,
“Any action in breach of the Court’s directions is an act in personam. Take the necessary legal recourse. If that legal recourse fails, come to us.”
[Read Live Coverage]