The Supreme Court on Friday passed an interim order prohibiting the unauthorised extraction, editing, modification, dissemination, reposting, uploading, sharing or monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the competent authority.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed that no person shall extract, modify, disseminate, post, repost, upload or monetise audio or video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platform without obtaining prior permission from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, as the case may be. It, however, clarified that the interim direction would not affect fair and accurate news reporting of judicial proceedings.
The Court passed the order on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by journalist Harshita Grover seeking the formulation of regulatory guidelines governing the clipping, editing, redistribution and commercial exploitation of audiovisual recordings of court proceedings. The petition contended that selective and decontextualised circulation of courtroom exchanges has undermined the dignity of courts, distorted judicial proceedings and eroded public confidence in the administration of justice.
The Court issued notice on the writ petition and impleaded all High Courts as parties to the proceedings. It also directed the Union government to identify and inform the Court about the nodal Ministries that would be responsible for implementing the regulatory framework sought in the petition.
Additionally, all High Courts have been directed to submit reports detailing the extent of implementation of the Supreme Court’s live-streaming guidelines and the impact of continuous live-streaming of court proceedings on the administration of justice. Notice was also issued to major social media intermediaries, including Meta and X, in view of their role in hosting and disseminating digital content relating to judicial proceedings.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that the petition did not seek to prohibit live-streaming of court proceedings or dilute the principle of open justice. He submitted that the grievance was limited to the rampant misuse of selectively edited courtroom clips that are circulated on social media with misleading captions, sensational commentary and distorted narratives.
Referring to a recent incident involving proceedings before the Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan, he submitted that isolated clips had gone viral, resulting in public ridicule of judicial proceedings after being taken completely out of context.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that regulation of digital data had become one of the biggest challenges in the digital ecosystem and suggested that the existing model of unrestricted live-streaming may require reconsideration. The Bench observed that live-streaming should not become a perpetual public broadcast akin to an entertainment channel and indicated that access to virtual hearings, which is often shared indiscriminately through digital links, also requires appropriate regulatory safeguards.
The Court noted that access to judicial proceedings should remain consistent with the constitutional principle of open courts while ensuring that technological facilities are not misused.
Supporting the plea for interim protection, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted the growing threat posed by artificial intelligence and deepfake technology. He submitted that advanced AI tools are capable of manipulating courtroom recordings by altering the spoken words of judges and advocates while retaining their original facial expressions, lip movements and voices, thereby creating deceptively authentic but fabricated videos.
He further submitted that selectively extracted clips from live-streamed proceedings are often circulated with predetermined narratives that distort the actual course of hearings and mislead the public.
The Chief Justice expressed concern over the increasing spread of misinformation arising from distorted reporting of judicial proceedings. Referring to his own experience, the CJI observed that even print media had, on occasions, attributed observations to him that were never made. He also referred to recent media reports concerning proceedings relating to student protests, observing that inaccurate reporting had contributed to public misunderstanding of judicial observations.
The petition argues that although live-streaming and video conferencing of court proceedings were introduced pursuant to the constitutional principles of open justice, transparency and public access to courts, the absence of an effective regulatory framework has facilitated widespread misuse of judicial recordings for sensationalism, misinformation, trolling and commercial gain.
According to the petitioner, isolated oral observations, tentative remarks and exchanges during hearings are routinely extracted from lengthy proceedings and circulated without the accompanying legal context through misleading captions, clickbait headlines and sensational commentary to maximise online engagement and advertising revenue.
The plea submits that such practices expose judges, advocates and litigants to reputational harm, online harassment and vilification, while simultaneously creating distorted public narratives regarding judicial proceedings. It emphasises that oral observations made during hearings are often tentative in nature and intended only to test legal submissions before final adjudication.
Selective circulation of such remarks, it argues, poses a serious risk to the administration of justice by presenting incomplete and misleading accounts of judicial proceedings.
Clarifying that it did not seek to curtail the constitutional principle of open justice or legitimate journalistic reporting, the petitioner has sought only reasonable regulatory safeguards against unauthorised clipping, editing, redistribution and commercial exploitation of judicial recordings so that transparency in the justice delivery system is preserved without permitting manipulation or distortion.
To substantiate its case, the petition refers to several instances of alleged misuse of judicial recordings, including the controversy surrounding remarks made by a Karnataka High Court judge in 2024 that were later clarified as having been reported out of context.
It also relied on the Bar Council of India’s March 2025 press release concerning unethical legal advertising and misleading promotional content on social media, as well as a July 2025 representation made by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCORA) seeking guidelines on videography and social media content creation within the Supreme Court premises.
The petitioner further cited instances where edited courtroom exchanges involving advocates were uploaded on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube with sensational captions, allegedly causing reputational damage. Reliance was also placed on a Delhi High Court order directing removal of an edited and selectively cropped courtroom video, which, according to the petitioner, demonstrated the ease with which judicial proceedings can be manipulated to create misleading narratives.
The plea additionally referred to the controversy arising from oral observations made by the Chief Justice of India during proceedings on May 15, 2026, which were subsequently clarified after being misconstrued and circulated through edited clips on social media.
Highlighting the commercial exploitation of judicial content, the petition alleged that several YouTube channels and social media platforms generate substantial advertising revenue, paid subscriptions and memberships by publishing edited courtroom videos designed to maximise viewership through controversy and sensationalism. It argued that judicial proceedings were made publicly accessible to strengthen transparency, accountability and public understanding of the legal process, and not to become monetisable digital content.
Drawing a comparative reference, the petition pointed to the copyright and licensing framework governing audiovisual recordings of proceedings before the United Kingdom Supreme Court and submits that similar regulatory safeguards should be introduced in India to prevent distortion, copyright violations and unauthorised commercial exploitation while preserving the principles of open justice, transparency and fair reporting.
It sought comprehensive guidelines regulating the recording, clipping, editing, redistribution, publication and monetisation of audiovisual recordings of judicial proceedings, while balancing the constitutional principles of freedom of speech, open courts and transparency with the need to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings, maintain public confidence in the justice delivery system and safeguard the administration of justice from misinformation, digital manipulation and abuse.
The post Supreme Court bans unauthorised circulation of court proceedings on digital platforms appeared first on India Legal.