Supreme Court restrains posting, circulating clips of live-streamed court hearings without permission

In what could be a push back against the misuse of videos of court hearings, the Supreme Court on Friday 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 clarified that the order will not affect news reporting.

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

"As an interim measure, we direct that there shall be no posting, reposting, extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, recording or review of the live-streamed proceedings of this Court on social media or any other digital platform without the prior permission of the concerned Registrar and the Secretary General of this Court and Registrar General of High Courts. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court and Registrar General of High Courts shall display this order on their court websites. This order shall have no bearing on news reporting," the order stated.

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.

The Bench also sought a report from the High Courts on the adoption of rules to regulate the live-streaming of courtroom hearings.

"They shall also give a report on the aspect of continuous live streaming of proceedings," the top court added in its order.

Justice Mohana clarified that the interim order passed today is not meant to be a gag on news reports.

"This is not a gag order on the press," she said.

Earlier in the hearing, the Bench had expressed that it is not feasible or fair to expect all courtrooms to live-stream court hearings for all times to come. This was after a counsel flagged the manner in which recordings of court proceedings were being circulated on social media.

"Adding words and showing clips is also happening," observed Senior Advocate Vikas Singh today, representing the petitioner.

The Bench, in turn, noted that a case had recently come up before the Delhi High Court over the circulation of unauthorised courtroom videos. In response, online intermediaries had told the High Court that they cannot proactively monitor or prevent such content.

"I don't think it is fair to expect livestreamings of all courts for all times to come," Justice Bagchi went on to observe.

The judge said that it is difficult to manage the circulation of such live-streams once they are uploaded on the public domain. He expressed that courtroom hearings cannot be reduced to entertainment that belittles the justice system.

"All this data that goes into public forum.. This is the biggest challenge, to manage the data. Don't make live-streaming an option, but an exception. There cannot be 24x7 courtroom entertainment. That belittles the justice system," he said.

"All these incidents are forcing us to rethink," added CJI Kant.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta joined in expressing concerns about the circulation of courtroom videos without context.

"A portion of livestreaming is taken up, colour is given to it and those who watch it are not even aware of what is happening and why," he said.

Justice Bagchi suggested that court proceedings could continue to be recorded, but access to it could be restricted.

"As a data repository, we can have court recording and archive it in data repository. The access and availability to the electronic record of court proceedings can be restricted. Else it is becoming a collateral threat to justice system," he said.

SG Mehta added that Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are also being used to modify the content of courtroom recordings when they are circulated.

"There are  IT tools or AI tools that can now alter spoken words while preserving the same lip movements. My words can be changed in my own voice, and Your Lordships' words can also be changed in Your Lordships' own voices. My Lords, if that happens, and it is already happening in spheres outside the legal system, can Your Lordships imagine the consequences? That is a secondary, but nevertheless significant, concern," he said.

"In written form, it has already happened. What I never said was also attributed to me," CJI Kant remarked.

SG Mehta also flagged that some courts have become "social media celebrities" after videos of the courtroom proceedings went viral. 

Senior Advocate Singh added that another concern is about the portrayal of lawyers and litigants in such videos.

"Another concern is advertising, which is precisely what the Bar Council seeks to prevent. But we are not concerned only with lawyers doing it. We are equally concerned with a citizen, or even a non-litigant, doing it...And the misuse of this data by litigants is precisely what this petition is about. It concerns litigants as well as other persons misusing such material," he said.

CJI Kant weighed in by recounting how a mentioning from earlier this week - possibly alluding to the mentioning of the Jantar Mantar protests - was projected in a certain way.

"The best and most recent example is from the day before yesterday. In the morning, a mention was made seeking the listing of a particular petition. Yet, till 10 AM today, no such petition has even been filed," he said.

Earlier today, the CJI criticised what he termed as "false reporting" by the media over his remarks about a plea on the ongoing protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Delhi.

It was reported this week that the Court had urgently refused to hear the matter upon a lawyer's mention. CJI Kant today pointed out that no petition had been filed with the registry, and that what was mentioned was only a representation.

"The application was to Registrar General to place an application before the Chief Justice. An application addressed to the Secretary General ...can it be treated as a plea?" CJI Kant added while hearing the present case.

Before parting with the case for the day, the Bench again indicated that it may put in place certain guardrails to regulate access to and circulation of courtroom recordings.

"The link (to access court hearings virtually) that is given to lawyers are also given to the public. We cannot stop the demon that is out of the bag but we can regulate to maintain the sanctity of our institution," said Justice Bagchi.

Advocates⁠ ⁠Deepeika Kalia, ⁠Sudeep Chandra, ⁠Khushi and ⁠Imran Ahmad also appeared for the petitioner.

[Live Coverage]