The Supreme Court has asked the Union to file its response on measures to prevent commercial exploitation and misrepresentation of courtroom proceedings, with the CJI saying guidelines, rather than further directions, may be required.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Union to file its response on measures to prevent commercial exploitation of livestreamed court proceedings and the misrepresentation of courtroom proceedings, as Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raised concern over YouTube channels continuing to upload audio-video clips despite the Court’s order restricting their commercial exploitation. The Court directed that its existing interim directions continue and be faithfully complied with by all social media channels, and will hear the matter again after two weeks [Plea On Unauthorised Circulation Of Recordings Of Court Proceedings].
The Bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union, and Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan addressed the Court.
CJI Raises Concern Over Channels Still Uploading
The CJI said that some channels were continuing to upload clips of proceedings.
“There are some channels. You think we will permit?”
Advocate Mathews Nedumpara responded, “I am uploading. Transparency has to be maintained.” Advocate Prashant Bhushan informed the Court that the Union had not filed its response. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “I will place it on record. But those YouTube channels which are still uploading may stop uploading.”
Nedumpara: Proceedings Must Remain Open To Scrutiny
Mr Nedumpara objected to the Solicitor General’s submission: “How can the Solicitor General say so? Mr SG, you are doing very wrong. People have a right to know what is happening in Court. Proceedings have to remain open to public scrutiny.” The CJI replied:
“Our order pertains to commercial exploitation. Court proceedings are not meant for commercial exploitation.”
The CJI asked the Union to file its response on measures to prevent commercial exploitation and misrepresentation of courtroom proceedings, indicating that guidelines, rather than further directions, may be required.
Bagchi: Clips Uploaded For Personal Gain
“Today, uploading clips of court proceedings is being done for personal gain. It is a very serious thing.”
Justice Bagchi observed that livestreams can be selectively edited and uploaded to personal profiles to promote professional services, contrary to the principles of the legal profession.
Sankaranarayanan: Make The Entire Hearing Available
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said: “Suppose a hearing is 40 minutes long. A 30-second clip gets uploaded with a headline saying ‘Court slams lawyer’.” He suggested that if proceedings are reproduced, the entire hearing should be made available rather than selective excerpts.
Justice Bagchi recalled examining, during his time at the High Court, whether technology could prevent selective clipping. He said, “Even if restrictions are introduced, someone can record the screen and cut out portions. These are issues requiring introspection.”
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Confiscates Phone Of Man Recording Court Proceedings, Imposes Rs 10,000 Costs
CJI: No Question Of Gagging
“Broadly, all of us are in agreement. There is no question of gagging anything. But some people are using it for professional promotion.”
Justice Bagchi added, “Dialogue should be without fear of being misquoted.” Mr Nedumpara also raised the recent controversy over the muting of courtroom proceedings.
Union Gets Two Weeks; Interim Directions Continue
The Solicitor General sought two weeks to file the Union’s counter-affidavit, along with a proposal prepared after considering the suggestions received so far. The Court permitted the petitioners and other stakeholders to submit their suggestions to the Solicitor General’s office, and directed that its existing interim directions shall continue and must be faithfully complied with by all social media channels. The matter will be heard again after two weeks.
The Background
On July 24, 2026, a Bench of the CJI, Justice Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed an interim order in a public interest litigation, restraining the posting, re-posting, monetisation and uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission. The order did not affect reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets.
Case Details: Plea on unauthorised extraction and circulation of audio and video recordings of court proceedings, Supreme Court of India, hearing of 9 October 2026; next hearing after two weeks. Interim order of 24 July 2026 continues. Case number for this hearing not reported.
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union; Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara; Advocate Prashant Bhushan; Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.