The Supreme Court has asked the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to build action against unauthorised court hearing clips into the policy it is framing, so that those who breach the Court’s directions on extracting and uploading recordings of proceedings can be dealt with.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday, October 30, called on the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to include, in its proposed policy on recordings of court proceedings, a provision for action against those who breach the Court’s directions restraining the unauthorised extraction and uploading of audio-video clips of hearings [Harshita Grover v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a batch of petitions on the live streaming of court proceedings and the recording and publication of clips from them.
The background
On the previous date, the Court had asked its Registry to forward the suggestions it had received to the office of the Solicitor General. Other parties, intervenors and High Courts were allowed to send their own suggestions to the Solicitor General, who was to prepare a draft proposal on commercial exploitation, misrepresentation, misquoting and the spread of misleading content drawn from court proceedings.
In its interim order of July 24, the Court had directed:
“there shall be no extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting of the audio-video recording(s) of the judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India or the Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional High Courts.”
The Court had clarified at the time that the order would not stop news outlets from reporting on court proceedings without sharing the clips.
What the Solicitor General said
At the start of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench that the suggestions received had been sent to MeitY and asked that the matter be listed after the Diwali break. He also pointed to certain breaches of the Court’s earlier directions and urged the Court to consider directing take-down of content where a breach occurs.
The intervenor’s suggestion
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervenor, submitted that the problem could be addressed by keeping a duly authenticated repository of court proceedings on an official website of the Court, protected by watermarking and cryptographic signing, from which people could extract clips.
Justice Bagchi responded that steps along these lines were being taken on the administrative side, and that measures to prevent the extraction of clips from the YouTube channels of High Courts were also under way. He added that implementation remained difficult.
The debate over “commercial exploitation”
When Justice Bagchi recalled that the earlier order restrained any “commercial exploitation” of courtroom clips, Bhushan argued that the term was vague. He gave the example of a YouTuber who wishes to report on a case using a clip taken from the official website.
Justice Bagchi said such a YouTuber would have to take permission from the Secretary General of the Court. Solicitor General Mehta added that YouTubers earn money from the content they publish and are not doing it for a public purpose.
Bhushan said such a pre-condition could create difficulties. Justice Bagchi replied that there had to be court supervision over both the extent of what is extracted from a clip and the purpose for which it is extracted, remarking:
“We will examine the problem when we cross it.”
The order
Noting that MeitY is framing a policy on the subject, the Court recorded:
“It is said formulation of policy is under consideration. Necessary measures for taking action against those who fail to comply with directions will also be incorporated in policy.”
Why the order matters
Live streaming has opened courtrooms to the public, but it has also produced a steady stream of edited, clipped and monetised videos that can misquote judges and lawyers or strip remarks of their context. The Court’s July 24 interim order put a permission requirement on any extraction or upload of such recordings, while leaving ordinary news reporting untouched.
Friday’s direction moves the issue from interim restraint towards enforcement. By asking MeitY to write consequences for breaches into its policy, the Court has signalled that its directions need a working mechanism behind them. The exchange on “commercial exploitation” also shows the question is still open: how far independent creators and journalists may use official clips, and on what terms, is likely to be tested as the policy takes shape.
Case Title: Harshita Grover v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) No. 751 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union; Advocate Prashant Bhushan for an intervenor