Paradox of Live Streaming Court Proceedings: A Double-Edged Sword

The landmark judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, brought about a transformative shift in the Indian judiciary and allowed live streaming of Court proceedings, in cases involving national and/or constitutional significance. This decision, delivered by a three-judge bench, led by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, was based on the fundamental right to access justice under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court emphasized that live streaming would promote transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the judiciary by making legal proceedings accessible to all.

To ensure that live streaming does not compromise privacy or disrupt sensitive cases, the Supreme Court imposed certain safeguards, specifying that only selected cases would be broadcasted. Matters related to sexual offenses, matrimonial disputes, and national security, were explicitly excluded from live streaming to protect the dignity and confidentiality of those involved. The Court implemented a phased approach, starting with a pilot project in the Supreme Court, which was widely appreciated for striking a balance between judicial openness and individual privacy rights.

Following this historic ruling, several High Courts across India began live streaming their proceedings through their official YouTube channels, allowing the general public to observe case hearings in real time. This move was initially seen as a significant step towards enhancing judicial accountability and promoting public awareness of legal proceedings. However, the unregulated use of live-streamed content has raises serious ethical and legal concerns.

Social media platforms and individuals selectively edit, sensationalize, and monetize Court proceedings, turning transparency into business opportunities. Unauthorized clips are reposted on platforms like YouTube, generating significant revenue, with creators earning between ₹5,000 to ₹20,000 per 100,000 views and up to ₹600,000 for 1.5 million views. This financial incentive has led to misleading headlines and clickbait content, distorting the judiciary’s intent and raising ethical concerns.

The most popular content usually pertains to matrimonial disputes, criminal cases, or instances in which lawyers or police officers are reprimanded in court. The court’s proceedings are repurposed as entertainment, exploiting the very case and individuals whose privacy the judicial system ought to protect. This misuse not only diminishes the solemnity of Court proceedings but also raises serious legal concerns.

Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, Section 51 states that copyright shall be infringed when a person without authorization reproduces, distributes, or publicly communicates copyrighted content. Section 63 prescribes punishment, including imprisonment, for such an infringement. The unauthorized recording, reproduction, or commercial use of live-streamed Court proceedings without prior approval from the court, amounts to a direct violation of these provisions, especially when social media channels monetize such content for profit.

The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, also provides legal safeguards against such misuse. Section 66D penalizes impersonation using electronic means to obtain wrongful gain, while Section 67 prohibits the publication or transmission of any obscene or misleading content. The unauthorized reposting of Court proceedings with sensationalized or misleading headlines, often taken out of context, violates these provisions, as it misleads the public and creates false narratives about judicial decisions.

Additionally, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically Section 2(c), defines contempt as any act that scandalizes the court, prejudices fair trials, or obstructs judicial proceedings. The selective editing and misrepresentation of judicial proceedings, particularly for public entertainment or financial gain, undermines the dignity and authority of the Court and can attract contempt proceedings against those responsible.

Furthermore, the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also affected. The Supreme Court’s ruling on live streaming included safeguards to ensure that sensitive matters such as family disputes, criminal trials, and disciplinary hearings, are protected. However, the monetization of Court proceedings, especially in such cases, infringes on the privacy and dignity of the individuals involved, violating their fundamental rights.

The unauthorized use and posting of Court proceedings clips on platforms such as YouTube and Instagram has increasingly portrayed lawyers in a negative light, often taking statements out of context and leading to unwarranted public criticism. Viewers, unaware of the case's complete facts or the legal nuances being argued, frequently misjudge advocates, tarnishing their professional reputation and credibility. This practice undermines the very purpose of live-streaming proceedings, which is to promote judicial transparency, and instead fosters misinterpretation and distrust. This concern was aptly echoed by Justice BR Gavai during his address on "Leveraging Technology Within the Judiciary" in Nairobi, Kenya.

Although some cases may lack strong factual merits, they often involve legal remedies that lawyers are entitled to canvass. However, selective social media reposting creates a detrimental narrative that erodes public confidence in the profession. Despite statutory warnings from courts, such practices persist, highlighting the need for stricter enforcement to protect the dignity of advocates and the integrity of the judicial process.

A significant ruling in this context came from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in Dr. Vijay Bajaj vs. Union of India & Others, which addressed the misuse of live-streamed Court proceedings. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to prevent the unauthorized editing, sharing, and monetization of Court videos on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook. Acknowledging these concerns, the Court issued notices to the respondents and imposed an interim restraint on the unauthorized dissemination of Court proceedings. Furthermore, it directed strict compliance with the Madhya Pradesh Live-Streaming Rules, 2021 and ordered the removal of any unauthorized content. To prevent the risk of inappropriate content being broadcast, the Court also emphasized the necessity of a ‘time lag’ in live streaming.

A similar observation was made in the case of K Kiran Kumar vs. Swaroopa, where the High Court of Chhattisgarh addressed the growing misuse of social media platforms, where live-streamed Court proceedings were reposted alongside derogatory and contemptuous comments targeting judges, lawyers, and the judiciary. These comments, ranging from personal attacks to unfounded allegations, scandalized the court's authority and undermined public confidence in the justice delivery system. The Court emphasized that while fair and temperate criticism is permissible, attributing improper motives or vilifying the judiciary constitutes serious contempt of Court. Citing landmark judgments such as Swapnil Tripathi supra, the Court reiterated the necessity of protecting the integrity and independence of the judiciary, which is fundamental to democracy.

The Court directed the Registrar General, in coordination with the Cyber Cell, to identify individuals responsible for such posts and initiate appropriate contempt proceedings. It also stressed upon the importance of adhering to live-streaming guidelines to ensure transparency while safeguarding the dignity of judicial proceedings.

It is noteworthy that each time the High Court takes cognizance of such incidents, there is a temporary lull, during which YouTube channels and social media accounts either go silent or are deleted. However, this pause is often short-lived, as new accounts are swiftly created under different names, and the same practice of reposting Court proceedings resumes, circumventing legal scrutiny.

The court’s intervention highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the need to prevent actions that obstruct or prejudice the administration of justice. To protect the integrity of the legal system and maintain the dignity of the legal profession, strict measures must be implemented to prevent this misuse and ensure that the original intent of live streaming is preserved.

While the live streaming of court proceedings was introduced to promote judicial transparency and public engagement, its unregulated use has led to unintended consequences. The exploitation of legal proceedings for commercial gain, sensationalism, and misinformation undermines the very principles the initiative sought to uphold. Courts must establish stricter guidelines to prevent the misuse of live-streamed content while ensuring that judicial openness is preserved.

It is important to hold social media channels accountable to prevent the unauthorized reposting of judicial proceedings. The courts should penalize the owners of YouTube channels that unauthorisedly edit and monetize court proceedings. This would serve as a deterrent and set a strong example, ensuring that the sanctity of court proceedings is upheld and that the reputation of lawyers arguing cases is protected. A balanced approach is essential—one that protects privacy, upholds dignity, maintains judicial integrity and educates the public about the judicial process. Without proper regulation, the initiative may do more harm than good, turning the tool for accountability into a platform for exploitation.

About the authors: Shradha Rajgiri is a Senior Associate and Nitin Aditya is an Associate at Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers).

Prashanth Shivadass, Partner, provided inputs.

The contents and comments of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/ position of Shivadass and Shivadass (Law Chambers) but remain solely of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up, please contact admin@sdlaw.co.in.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.