The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure strict implementation of its interim directions prohibiting the unauthorised extraction, modification and circulation of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana further instructed the Ministry to incorporate appropriate measures in the proposed policy framework to deal with individuals and entities violating the Court’s directions.
The directions were issued while hearing a batch of Public Interest Litigations concerning the unauthorised use, dissemination and commercial exploitation of recordings of court proceedings, including their circulation through social media platforms.
The Court emphasised that the policy being formulated by the Centre must provide an effective mechanism to ensure compliance with its existing judicial orders and prescribe appropriate consequences for violations.
“Suggestions given by the High Courts and interim orders are under consideration of the Ministry of MeitY where formulation of policy is under consideration. MeitY is directed to ensure the compliance of interim directions contained in para 9 of the order dated 1st July and as explained while subsequent order dated 9th October 2026. Necessary measures for taking action against those who fail to comply with the directions will also be incorporated in the policy regime,” the Bench observed.
The Court’s interim directions dated July 24, 2026, prohibit the extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting, uploading, transmission, storage or hosting of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without prior permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the concerned High Court.
During Friday’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench that suggestions received from various High Courts and members of the legal fraternity had been forwarded to the Supreme Court Registry. These inputs are intended to assist the government in preparing a comprehensive proposal addressing the concerns raised in the proceedings.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, proposed the introduction of digital watermarking and cryptographic authentication to prevent unauthorised manipulation and circulation of court recordings.
He suggested that official recordings of judicial proceedings should be made available through an authenticated court-controlled website, with each video carrying a verifiable digital signature or watermark. Such a mechanism, he submitted, would enable viewers and digital platforms to distinguish authentic court recordings from manipulated or unauthorised versions.
Chief Justice Surya Kant indicated that steps in this regard were being considered separately on the administrative side of the judiciary.
Justice Bagchi also highlighted the practical difficulties involved in preventing unauthorised extraction of court recordings. He observed that although certain High Courts had introduced restrictions on downloading or extracting videos from their official YouTube channels, individuals could still reproduce the proceedings through other means, including screen recordings.
The real challenge, the Judge indicated, was ensuring effective implementation of the restrictions, for which the intervention of MeitY and the authorities responsible for enforcing intermediary-related rules would be necessary.
Bhushan further questioned the scope of the restriction on commercial exploitation, pointing out that the prohibition could potentially create uncertainty for digital content creators and journalists seeking to use portions of official recordings while reporting on court proceedings.
Justice Bagchi clarified that even a YouTuber intending to use an extract from an official court recording would be required to obtain permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.
The present proceedings also concern the broader issue of safeguarding the integrity of judicial proceedings in the digital environment, particularly against misleading representations, selective editing and unauthorised commercial use of court recordings.
Earlier, on August 5, 2026, the Supreme Court had clarified that its restrictions concerning the use of audio-video recordings should not be interpreted as imposing a blanket prohibition on recognised media organisations reporting on court proceedings.
The Court had also sought inputs from the Union Government, in consultation with the concerned ministries, on a comprehensive framework to address unauthorised dissemination and misrepresentation of judicial proceedings. High Courts were additionally asked to furnish status reports concerning the implementation of the Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings.
On October 9, 2026, the Bench had continued the interim restrictions and directed that they be faithfully followed by social media channels. It also took note of suggestions received from various High Courts and intervening parties and asked the Solicitor General to place a comprehensive proposal before it.
The issue has also prompted action at the High Court level. The Kerala High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate over allegations of unauthorised recording and broadcasting of court proceedings on social media.
The post Supreme Court directs MeitY to enforce restrictions on unauthorised use of Court proceedings, calls for action against violators appeared first on India Legal.