SC restricts sharing of court hearing videos on social media without permission
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK New Delhi, July 24: The Supreme Court has prohibited the recording, extraction, uploading and circulation of audio-video clips…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, July 24: The Supreme Court has prohibited the recording, extraction, uploading and circulation of audio-video clips of court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the competent court authority, observing that the unregulated spread of such content has become a “demon out of the bag.”
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the interim order while hearing a public interest litigation seeking regulation of livestreaming and circulation of court proceedings.
The Bench directed that no audio or video recording of judicial proceedings shall be extracted, modified, disseminated, posted, reposted, uploaded or monetised on social media or digital platforms without prior permission from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.
Not a gag order on media reporting
The Supreme Court made it clear that the interim order does not restrict news reporting of court proceedings and should not be interpreted as a gag order on the media or freedom of speech.
The petition, filed by a journalist, argued that selective and out-of-context circulation of courtroom exchanges on social media was undermining the dignity of courts and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC sends strong message on marriage, rejects four divorce appeals in one day
‘Court cannot become a 24×7 entertainment channel’
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the court was not seeking to completely prohibit access to judicial proceedings but to regulate misuse of recordings.
“We cannot stop a demon which is out of the bag,” Justice Bagchi remarked while referring to the widespread circulation of courtroom clips on social media.
He further observed that courts “cannot become a 24×7 entertainment channel” and suggested that access to livestreams should also be regulated, with viewers required to seek permission rather than enjoying unrestricted access.
Justice Bagchi also pointed out that links for virtual hearings are often shared indiscriminately, necessitating stricter safeguards.
Notice issued to Meta, X and other platforms
The apex court issued notices to Meta, X and other social media intermediaries regarding the circulation of court proceeding videos on their platforms.
Justice V. Mohana clarified that the interim order is intended to regulate dissemination of judicial recordings and does not amount to a restriction on free speech.
Concerns over AI manipulation and misuse
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, supported livestreaming of court proceedings but highlighted the misuse of viral courtroom clips, including a recent incident in which a litigant allegedly threw papers at the Bench and abused the Chief Justice.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also backed the plea, warning that artificial intelligence tools could be used to alter judges’ and lawyers’ statements before circulating manipulated videos online.
CJI flags false media reports
Chief Justice Surya Kant also expressed concern over inaccurate media reporting, stating that remarks attributed to him had been distorted.
Referring to reports that he had refused an urgent hearing on a plea challenging police action against students on July 20, the CJI described the reports as “reckless.”
He clarified that no writ petition had been filed before the court and that only a representation had been received, which could not be treated as a petition for urgent listing.
The Bench’s interim directions are aimed at balancing transparency in judicial proceedings with the need to protect the dignity of courts and prevent misuse of courtroom recordings in the digital and artificial intelligence era.
