The Supreme Court on Friday lamented the misuse of live-streaming of court hearings for commercial gain, saying that it has caused damage to the institution of the judiciary [Harshita Grover v. Union of India & Ors].

The Court observed,

"You have no idea the damage caused to Bar & Bench...the institution in itself..."

It eventually asked Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to collate suggestions from High Courts and other stakeholders on how to tackle the issue. It ordered,

"The suggestions received from the parties and other stakeholders shall also be forwarded to the office of the Solicitor General of India. Time is granted to file a counter-affidavit along with a proposal prepared after taking into consideration the suggestions received so far."

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea seeking restraint on the unauthorised extraction and monetisation of videos of court proceedings.

Previously, the Bench had passed an interim order prohibiting the unauthorised use or circulation of live-streamed court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission. The Court also issued notice on the plea to all States and sought their responses. The Central government was asked to examine whether the prayers made in the plea can be implemented.

It later clarified that its order regulating the use of audio and video recordings of court proceedings does not prohibit recognised news organisations from reporting on hearings. The Court, however, made it clear that while courtroom reporting remains unaffected, recognised news outlets must continue to comply with the restrictions imposed under its earlier interim order.

Today, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara argued that people have a right to know whatever happens in court. The SG pointed out that some YouTube channels are also uploading courtroom proceedings. Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted that the Central government was yet to file a reply in the matter. The SG then said,

"I do not think there should be any opposition to directing those YouTube channels which are still uploading court proceedings to stop doing so."

Nedumpara insisted that the government cannot silence people's opinions.

CJI Kant replied,

"There is commercial exploitation of court proceedings, which are meant for public viewing, for public understanding of the proceedings and for making the public better informed about what happens in court. Some channels are exploiting these proceedings commercially. Do you think we will not prohibit them? We are only here to lay down guidelines that court proceedings are not meant for commercial exploitation. Anything meant for public good should not be allowed to be commercially exploited. That would defeat the very purpose."

He went on to say,

"Misquoting or misrepresenting judges is not the purpose of live streaming. The reporting must be fair and accurate, and there is a way to deal with such misuse."

Justice Bagchi added,

"First, the Bar Council of India prohibits lawyers from canvassing for professional gain. Today, much of the uploading of court proceedings is being done for personal promotion and professional gain. It is a very serious issue. We are in the process of arranging sufficient storage space, whether cloud storage or otherwise, for preserving the data relating to live-streamed proceedings. That material can be made available through appropriate mechanisms, including RTI.

But when we live-stream proceedings, because of technological limitations, there is no effective regulation preventing someone from extracting portions of a live stream, uploading them on a personal profile and using them to canvass for professional benefits. This is completely contrary to the principles governing advocacy and the legal profession."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan chimed in,

"The hearing is for 30 minutes, but only four minutes of it are uploaded. The uploaded video may contain something absolutely unconnected with the proceedings...I have two suggestions. First, if there is going to be a reproduction of court proceedings, let it be of the entirety. Second, no titles or descriptions should be added. That is how these videos appear on YouTube."

Justice Bagchi said,

"I was personally involved in some work at the High Court to which I belong, to find out whether it was technologically feasible to restrict the extraction of data from live-streamed proceedings. What I was told was that even if such restrictions were imposed, somebody could still record the screen and then extract material from that recording. These are issues that require introspection and technological support. The three principal platforms can respond on this."

CJI Kant again clarified,

"All of us agree that there is no question of gagging anything. There is no question of restricting live-streaming. But this kind of misuse, as you have rightly pointed out...Some people are extracting recordings for personal promotion, monetisation, advertising and misrepresentation. These are the areas of concern."

[Live account of hearing]