Supreme Court bars unauthorised sharing and monetisation of court proceedings
New Delhi, July 24
The Supreme Court on Friday barred the unauthorised extraction, editing, uploading, reposting or dissemination of live-streamed court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the concerned High Court.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, in its interim order, further said the Secretary General of the Supreme Court and the Registrars General of all High Courts are to upload the directions on their respective official websites.
It clarified that the directions will not affect news reporting of court proceedings
The bench also issued notice to the Centre and all State governments on a petition seeking to curb the unauthorised extraction, dissemination, and monetisation of videos of court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms.
It also sought a report from the High Courts on the adoption of rules to regulate the live-streaming of courtroom hearings.
"As an interim measure, we direct that there shall be no posting, reposting, extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation of the live-streamed proceedings of courts 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 bench ordered.
The apex court passed the order on a PIL filed by one Harshita Grover seeking guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing, dissemination and monetisation of audio-visual recordings of court proceedings on digital platforms.
During the hearing, the senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, said that the plea was not opposed to the live-streaming of court proceedings. Instead, he raised concerns over the unauthorised extraction, editing, and circulation of court hearing clips on social media, arguing that such misuse distorted proceedings and warranted regulation.
He pointed out the instances where selective clips of hearings had gone viral.
Justice Bagchi called for rethinking of livestreaming, asserting that action should be an exception rather than a norm.
"I don't think it is fair to expect livestreamings of all courts for all times to come," Justice Bagchi said, adding that it is difficult to manage the circulation of such live-streams once it is uploaded to the public domain.
He said that courtroom hearings "cannot be reduced to entertainment that belittles the justice system."
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cautioned that advances in artificial intelligence have made it possible to manipulate courtroom videos.
He warned that AI could alter the words spoken by judges and lawyers while preserving realistic lip movements, posing a serious risk of misinformation.
The Solicitor General also said that the clips from the livestream are selectively extracted, and a particular narrative is given, distorting the proceedings.
The Chief Justice agreed that misinformation stemming from distorted reporting was a growing concern.
The CJI observed that even some of his own remarks had been misrepresented in the print media, reiterating the concern he had expressed earlier in the day over inaccurate reports relating to the plea on the student protest issue.
"The best and most recent example is from the day before yesterday. In the morning, a mention was made seeking listing of a particular petition. Yet, till 10 am today, no such petition has even been filed," the CJI said.
— ANI
Reader Comments
I understand the concern about misinformation, but I worry this could be used to selectively restrict criticism. Court proceedings should be public, and this feels like putting up a paywall for transparency. Hope the guidelines are clear and balanced.
Totally agree that courts shouldn't be for entertainment. Justice Bagchi said it right - it's not a reality show! But I hope news channels can still do their job properly. Selective clipping by some channels to create TRP is a real problem though.
AI manipulation is a serious threat that most people don't realize. Can easily fake audio and video of judges. This is a necessary step, not a restriction on freedom. Let the courts function with dignity.
I'm a lawyer and I think this is a fair balance. The order doesn't affect news reporting, so media can still report. It only stops people from clipping and twisting things for social media likes. In India, we've seen how one 30-second clip can create a riot. Better to be safe.
As someone who watches Indian court livestreams for legal research, I hope this doesn't become too restrictive. Selective clips are a problem, but total bans hurt genuine academic use. The Secretary General's permission requirement seems like a reasonable middle ground though.
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.