The Supreme Court barred posting, reposting, recording, editing, monetising or circulating clips of live-streamed court proceedings on digital platforms without prior permission. The interim order clarifies that the restriction will not affect news reporting.
The Supreme Court passed an interim order prohibiting the unauthorised use, extraction or circulation of live-streamed court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission, in what amounts to the first significant judicial pushback against the commercial and distorted repurposing of courtroom video.
The Court expressly clarified that the restraint will not affect news reporting.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order while hearing a plea seeking to restrain the unauthorised extraction and monetisation of videos of court proceedings.
The order said,
“As an interim measure, we direct that there shall be no posting, reposting, extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, recording or review of the live-streamed proceedings of this Court 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 Secretary General of the Supreme Court and Registrar General of High Courts shall display this order on their court websites. This order shall have no bearing on news reporting.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court To Live-Stream All Matters | Beta Version of App In Final Testing Phase
The court order was issued while considering a public interest litigation filed by journalist Harshita Grover. The petition sought guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing, distribution, and monetisation of audiovisual recordings of court proceedings on digital platforms.
It argued that the selective and out-of-context sharing of courtroom discussions diminishes the dignity of the judiciary and weakens public trust in the justice delivery system.
Justice Mohana underscored the carve-out for the press, stating,
“This is not a gag order on the press.”
The hearing saw the Bench voice considerable disquiet about what live-streaming has become in practice, as distinct from what it was intended to achieve.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh drew attention to the manipulation of recordings, telling the Court,
“Adding words and showing clips is also happening.”
Justice Bagchi questioned whether universal live-streaming was sustainable at all,
“I don’t think it is fair to expect livestreamings of all courts for all times to come.”
He observed that once such material enters the public domain, its circulation becomes difficult to manage, and cautioned against the reduction of judicial proceedings to entertainment,
“All this data that goes into public forum.. This is the biggest challenge, to manage the data. Don’t make live-streaming an option, but an exception. There cannot be 24×7 courtroom entertainment. That belittles the justice system.”
The Chief Justice added,
“All these incidents are forcing us to rethink.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the concerns, submitting that fragments of proceedings are extracted and given a slant that viewers, unaware of the underlying context, are in no position to assess.
He then raised what he described as a secondary but significant worry the use of artificial intelligence to alter recordings,
“There are IT tools or AI tools that can now alter spoken words while preserving the same lip movements. My words can be changed in my own voice, and Your Lordships’ words can also be changed in Your Lordships’ own voices. My Lords, if that happens, and it is already happening in spheres outside the legal system, can Your Lordships imagine the consequences?”
The Chief Justice responded that the written equivalent of the problem had already materialised,
“In written form, it has already happened. What I never said was also attributed to me.”
Mehta also observed that some courts had acquired the status of social media celebrities on the strength of viral hearing videos.
The Chief Justice recounted an episode from earlier in the week apparently a reference to the mentioning concerning the Jantar Mantar protests as an illustration of how proceedings are portrayed,
“The best and most recent example is from the day before yesterday. In the morning, a mention was made seeking the listing of a particular petition. Yet, till 10 AM today, no such petition has even been filed.”
The remark connects directly to the Chief Justice’s separate criticism, made earlier the same day, of what he termed false reporting concerning a plea on the Cockroach Janta Party protests in Delhi. It had been reported this week that the Court refused an urgent hearing on a lawyer’s mentioning; the Chief Justice pointed out that no petition had been filed with the registry and that what was mentioned was a representation.
Addressing the point in the present case, he asked,
“The application was to Registrar General to place an application before the Chief Justice. An application addressed to the Secretary General …can it be treated as a plea?”
Singh raised a further concern touching the professional-conduct framework the use of such videos as a form of self-promotion, which the Bar Council’s rules against advertising are designed to prevent. He clarified, however, that the petition is not confined to lawyers, extending equally to litigants, and indeed non-litigants, misusing the material.
The Court issued notice on the plea to all States and sought their responses. The Union government has been asked to examine whether the reliefs sought in the petition can be implemented.
The Bench additionally called for a report from the High Courts on their adoption of rules to regulate the live-streaming of hearings, adding,
“They shall also give a report on the aspect of continuous live streaming of proceedings.”
Justice Bagchi floated an alternative architecture retaining recordings while restricting access to them,
“As a data repository, we can have court recording and archive it in data repository. The access and availability to the electronic record of court proceedings can be restricted. Else it is becoming a collateral threat to justice system.”
Signalling that further safeguards may follow, he observed before the matter rose,
“The link (to access court hearings virtually) that is given to lawyers are also given to the public. We cannot stop the demon that is out of the bag but we can regulate to maintain the sanctity of our institution.”
Background: how live-streaming came about
The practice traces to the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, in which the Court held that live-streaming of proceedings of constitutional and national importance was permissible, locating it in the principle of open justice and the public’s right to know under Article 19(1)(a).
The judgment contemplated a regulated framework, with categories of cases excluded and the Court retaining control over the feed.
Full live-streaming of Constitution Bench hearings on the Supreme Court’s own platform began in September 2022, and several High Courts have since streamed proceedings on their channels, in some instances attracting very substantial viewership.
Case Title : Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Live-Stream