Popcorn justice? Edited clips of court hearings are appearing on YouTube and Instagram timelines

Abhi jail bhej dunga (I will send you to jail right now). Tumko car se thukwa dunga, deewar mein chunwa dunga (You will be hit by a car, and buried in the wall). Vardi utarne me time nahi lagega (You will be out of your job in no time)..One may mistake these for dialogues from Bollywood movies. They are, in fact, captions of videos going viral on YouTube and other social media platforms in which judges are apparently reprimanding lawyers, police officials and government officers.Such snippets from court proceedings are making their way to people’s social media timelines making them laugh and, at times, rage at some of the remarks..As a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court began hearing the batch of petitions seeking recognition of same-sex marriage in April this year, videos of the court proceedings showing Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud making remarks on gender fluidity went viral.The viewers not only questioned and criticised the CJI, calling him ‘woke’, ‘liberal’ and ‘leftist’, but also used derogatory terms for him and the Supreme Court of India.Something similar happened in May, when a video of Justice Vivek Agrawal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court went viral. In the video, the judge is seen reprimanding a lawyer named GS Udhe who had filed a petition to stop a programme of Bageshwar Dham’s Dhirendra Shahstri.The video gathered millions of views on social media. While many praised the judge for his intellect and conduct, others claimed that the rebuke bore casteist connotations, because Udhe belonged to the Dalit community.One viewer commented that the proceedings were better than any TV show. Another social media handle said that the judge’s use of the term ‘tum log’ (you people) is a reference to Udhe’s caste.A Bar & Bench fact check later showed that Justice Agarwal and Udhe had entered into an argument much before the said comment and the reference to 'tum log' did not bear any casteist connotations but was rather a reference to lawyers who file sponsored or motivated PILs for publicity..This was just one example of how problematic these out-of-context video clippings can be.The questions that arise are: Should there be a mechanism to curb such use of videos of court hearings? How does one draw lines in the sand between these videos and court reportage?.How it started.The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the shift to virtual hearings. And three years hence, courts have decided to keep the option alive, given the many benefits of hybrid hearings and the amount of money that was spent on setting up video conferencing facilities.In October 2020, Gujarat High Court became the first court in the country to live-stream its proceedings on YouTube. Many High Courts followed suit. In September 2022, the full court of the Supreme Court decided to live-stream Constitution Bench matters.The live-streaming of proceedings was hailed as a progressive move aimed at increasing transparency. However, concerns are now being raised that court proceedings are being reduced to a form of entertainment.Today, some of these YouTube channels have many more subscribers and engagement than the official channels of the Supreme Court or the High Courts. While the apex court only has around 57,000 subscribers and the Gujarat High Court around 1.30 lakh, a YouTube channel like Law Chakra has over 2.6 lakh subscribers and close to six crore views..Sensationalisation of court hearings and targeting of judges.Speaking to Bar & Bench, Advocate Swathi Sukumar said that the format of selectively copying and pasting video clips out of context is problematic and may have a chilling effect on judges posing hypothetical questions during hearings. She said that court proceedings are not like 24x7 news channels since they require an informed audience. “A little snippet is not representative of real content. It is like taking random photographs of a surgeon who is halfway through a surgery and saying, ‘See what he is doing.’” Sukumar was also concerned that a layperson may develop their views by watching these edited videos, on the basis of half-baked knowledge.“The bigger problem is that it gives a false sense to the people that they know what happened. This half-knowledge is a problem and because it is a live proceeding, you think it is real. But it is selling you half-baked knowledge and it has all kinds of unintended consequences. If people believe that they know something which they do not, then everything from the way they make decisions, their public commentaries, their politics, everything is determined by it.”.Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey held a slightly different view. He said that the right to information and knowledge is a very important aspect of the Constitution and, therefore, people should know what is happening in courts.“You are directly accountable to the public at large. All these courts are public courts. You must create confidence. I am pro-live streaming because it gives you the chance to introspect. This way the judiciary will also know what should be improved,” he said.However, Dubey cautioned against sensationalism.“Sometimes they put these headlines that make a lawyer or a judge a hero, and at times, they are ridiculed. This should not be there. People should know the context of everything and should know the judicial mind.”.Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen to agreed with the same.He said that news channels and social media could disinfect the larger public discourse by publishing court proceedings.“Channels and social media handles have the potential to reach court proceedings to a wider audience in a creative manner. Publishing live proceedings of courts would restore a sense of balance and sanity to public debates. Often, the decisions would relate to burning political and social topics. Of course, there are situations where absurd incidents do happen, but I think the benefit of the public being exposed to reasoned, knowledgeable debates on contentious societal issues far outweighs the negative impact.”Sen said that live-streaming is the first step towards permeating and disseminating constitutional consciousness amongst the public at large.“As and when it becomes possible to disseminate these proceedings in more creative and attractive ways without being distorted, I think the impact would be revolutionary,” he opined. .A judge’s perspective.Former Delhi High Court judge, Justice Talwant Singh said that the practice of downloading and editing the videos of court proceedings is ‘deplorable’.He said a judge may not be concerned with what is being said on social media. However, just as no one is allowed to take photos or videos of a court proceedings when they are there physically present, similarly, people should not download or edit streamed hearings either.“Streaming is a welcome start, but the way they [social media channels] edit and put headings on those proceedings like ‘Judge ne thanedar ke…’, is deplorable…Once you edit the content, whatever the judge said, people may not know the context and they will come up with their own conclusions,” Justice Singh stressed..Concerns around data privacy and copyright.When asked whether these YouTube channels or social media handles are violating court rules on live-streaming, Sen said that even though only some courts have notified such rules, the channels are indeed in violation.“After the Supreme Court judgment in Swapnil Tripathi (supra), all court rules prohibit the dissemination of live proceedings either whole, in part, in derivative forms, edited or unedited, for commercial purposes. Some courts, like the Gujarat High Court, allow the dissemination of live proceedings for educational purposes. It, therefore, appears that YouTube and social media platforms using the court proceedings violate the rules.”.According to Sen, these channels are violating copyright rules as well.“Court rules, such as the Karnataka Rules, place an express bar against unauthorized persons from recording, sharing and/or disseminating live-streamed proceedings for all purposes...In light of such an express bar read in consonance with Sections 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act, it would clearly amount to a copyright infringement,” he said..Advocate Virag Gupta appeared for RSS ideologue KN Govindacharya before the Supreme Court in the proceedings related to live-streaming. He told Bar & Bench that the courts have gone ahead with live-streaming without ensuring proper security of data. Further, he pointed out that the Supreme Court is yet to amend its rules on live-streaming as mandated in Swapnil Tripathi judgment of 2018..He said that by live-streaming its proceedings on YouTube, the Court is effectively surrendering its copyright.When our petition came up for hearing after many years, the Court issued notice and the registry said that they are doing the live-streaming on a trial basis. But even on a trial basis, they cannot compromise with orders of the Court, Gupta argued.“We are in favour of live-streaming and transparency. But it must be done in the framework of law. It cannot be done in an arbitrary manner. In other matters, the Supreme Court is insisting on rules, but here they are going without complying with its own judicial orders. Supreme Court judgments are the law of the land which cannot be compromised even by full court endorsement on the administrative side,” he said..How can misuse be curbed? .Sukumar was of the view that along with live-streaming, courts should also come out with full transcripts of hearings.Dubey said courts should take cognisance of the misuse of the clips and the government or the legislature should come up with a law.“You cannot show the proceedings selectively and demean the system. Channels should be held accountable,” he said. Justice Singh disagreed. He said that the courts have decided to live-stream their proceedings and, therefore, the courts should come up with instructions or circulars to curb the misuse.“Courts must come out with some type of instructions telling people not to download the proceedings, edit it and then put it on social media. Parliament is not required in this. Parliament has not asked the courts to live-stream the proceedings. Live-streaming is a welcome step and now it is for the courts to curb the misuse.”He added that the courts have made themselves accessible and have come to people with live-streaming, and now it is for the people to respect its proceedings. .Sen, meanwhile, says that the courts can look towards monetising the whole thing. "We should consider its potential. This will ultimately help the courts and the people."