SC clarifies media reporting of court proceedings unaffected, restricts use of courtroom audio-video
New Delhi, Aug 5
The Supreme Court has clarified that its recent interim order regulating the use of audio and video recordings of court proceedings does not impose a blanket prohibition on reportage by recognised news organisations, while reiterating that such outlets cannot use audio or video clips of judicial proceedings in their coverage.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the clarification after observing that "some confusion persists" regarding paragraph 11 of its July 24 interim order passed in a petition seeking implementation of a uniform framework for live streaming and recording of court proceedings across the country.
Clarifying the scope of its earlier directions, the CJI-led Bench said: "The said paragraph makes it clear that the order is not to be construed as imposing a blanket prohibition on the reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets."
"Such outlets may, therefore, continue to report on the proceedings and inform the general public of legal developments and judicial pronouncements, save that audio or video clips of the court proceedings shall not be utilised in the course of such reportage," it added.
I"In sum, while news outlets may continue to report on the court proceedings, they shall nonetheless remain bound by the restrictions set out in paragraph 10."
Accordingly, the top court said that paragraph 11 of its July 24 order "stands clarified to that extent".
The CJI Surya Kant-led Bench also granted four weeks' time to the respondents to file their counter affidavits and posted the matter for further hearing on September 18.
Earlier, on July 24, the Supreme Court had directed that audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings cannot be extracted, disseminated, monetised, posted, re-posted, uploaded, transmitted, modified, stored, or hosted on social media or any other digital platform without prior permission of the Secretary General of the apex court or the Registrar Generals of the respective High Courts.
The interim direction was passed while issuing notice on the writ petition and impleading all High Courts, along with major social media intermediaries and technology platforms, as parties to the proceedings.
The apex court had also directed the Union government to place before it a proposal, formulated through the nodal Ministries, to give effect to the reliefs sought in the petition, while asking all High Courts to submit status reports on the adoption of the Model Rules for live streaming and recording of court proceedings, including the feasibility of continuous and uninterrupted live streaming.
— IANS
Reader Comments
The Supreme Court always thinks carefully before acting. This clarification shows they're listening to legitimate concerns of the press while ensuring courtroom decorum isn't compromised. Good balance.
Sensible clarification from the CJI bench. The original order seemed overly broad. Glad they clarified that recognised news outlets can still do their job - just no cherry-picked clips that could misrepresent proceedings.
Honestly, I think this is the right approach. In today's world of viral clips and out-of-context videos, restricting audio-video usage while allowing textual reporting protects both the judiciary and the public's right to know. Common sense prevails!
I hope this doesn't become a tool to suppress transparency. The Supreme Court should be leading the way with live streaming, not putting more restrictions. The bar for media freedom keeps getting higher. Need to watch how this plays out.
Respectfully, I think the Court is overcomplicating this. If live streaming is good enough for the public to watch in real-time, why can't news outlets share those same clips? The distinction between text and video seems artificial in the digital age.
As a law student, I appreciate the Court's cautious approach. Judicial proceedings are sensitive, and a clip can
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.