The Supreme Court on Friday said that enforcement measures against the unauthorised circulation of live-streamed court hearings should be incorporated into a policy being contemplated by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITy) on such issues [Harshita Grover v. Union of India & Ors].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea seeking measures to curb 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.

It later clarified that its interim order did not prohibit recognised news organisations from reporting on hearings. However, news outlets must also comply with the restrictions on the circulation of video or audio recordings of hearings, the Court said.

In today's hearing of the matter, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that suggestions have been received on how to tackle the issue of unauthorised circulation of courtroom videos from various High Courts, lawyers and other stakeholders.

These suggestions have been placed before the top court's Registry, he said.

He added that a policy is being formulated on this subject as well.

"There have been breaches (of the court's directives against unauthorised circulation of courtroom videos). I don't want to escalate, but there have been breaches. I had a word with the Secretary...It is under consideration by the Ministry, for formulation of a policy," he told the Court.

The Court, in turn, directed that measures tackling violations of its earlier interim orders against the unauthorised circulation of videos on courtroom proceedings also be made part of this policy.

"Necessary measures for taking action against those who fail to comply with the directions will also be incorporated in the policy regime," the Court said.

Meanwhile, advocate Prashant Bhushan suggested that video livestreams of court hearings should be watermarked, so that they can be distinguished from manipulated clips of such hearings.

"With digital watermarking and cryptographic signing, every official clip released should be embedded with a verifiable digital signature or watermark, enabling the public and platforms to authenticate genuine court footage against manipulated versions. And this should be the sole authorised source. So all the proceedings of the Court should actually be placed on the Court's website, fully watermarked and authenticated, so that anybody should be able to extract," he said.

Justice Bagchi replied that such administrative safeguards are already being developed.

"That we are doing separately on the administrative side. We are also contemplating, and in fact some High Courts have put in place arrangements where you cannot make an extraction from the feed on the YouTube channel set up for the court concerned," Justice Bagchi said.

SG Mehta pointed out that individuals often record proceedings using secondary devices like mobile phones.

"It would be contempt of court... The difficulty is the implementation part, for which we are requesting the relevant authority under the rules," Justice Bagchi replied.

The Bench further stressed that even authenticated clips of courtroom proceedings cannot be monetised without approval.

"Even authenticated footage cannot be commercialised. That's a problem... That’s why in paragraph 9 (of the earlier interim order) we have already imposed the rider of commercial exploitation," said Justice Bagchi.

Bhushan, however, opposed the need for prior permission when it comes to journalistic reports. He argued that YouTubers or legal commentators reporting on court hearings should be permitted to use portions of official clips without securing prior permission.

In such cases, requiring permission from the Secretary General before being able to use authenticated clips of court hearings would run contrary to the open justice principles part of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Swapnil Tripathi (on livestreaming of court proceedings) case, he said.

The Bench, however, maintained that some form of supervision is required in every case where a video clip of a court hearing is sought to be extracted or circulated on public platforms.

"Court supervision is to the extent of how much you are extracting and for what purpose," Justice Bagchi said, in this regard.

"Actually, My Lord, that will lead to a problem, and I will explain," Bhushan persisted.

The Court, however, said it will examined these concerns in due course.

"We will examine the problem when we cross it," said Justice Bagchi.

[Live Coverage]