Supreme Court Takes a Stand Against Unauthorized Sharing of Judicial Proceedings

Supreme Court's New Directive on Judicial Recordings

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling, emphasizing that courts should not function as constant entertainment platforms. On Friday, the court prohibited the posting and sharing of audio and video recordings of court proceedings on social media and other digital channels without prior approval from court authorities.

This decision comes in response to concerns regarding the misuse of such recordings. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana announced the interim order while agreeing to consider a petition aimed at preventing unauthorized extraction, alteration, distribution, or monetization of these recordings.

The bench stated, "As a temporary measure, there shall be no extraction, alteration, distribution, monetization, posting, reposting, or uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without prior consent from the secretary general of this court or the registrar general of the relevant high courts."

However, the court clarified that this order would not impede news reporting on court activities.

The Supreme Court also issued notices to the government and various social media platforms, requesting their responses to the petition filed by journalist Harshita Grover.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner, highlighted the importance of the issues raised in the petition.

He pointed out that audio-visual recordings of court proceedings were being misused, with selective and edited clips circulating widely on social media.

The bench acknowledged that managing digital content has become a significant challenge, stating, "It cannot serve as a 24/7 entertainment channel for the court," and emphasized the necessity for restricted access.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concurred with Singh's arguments, advocating for some form of regulation.

Singh referenced an incident from July 10, where a litigant allegedly shouted obscenities and threw legal documents during a hearing, with the video of the event going viral and being ridiculed on social media.

Mehta expressed concerns about the misuse of court recordings, noting that individuals often extract specific segments to create misleading narratives that gain traction online.

He also raised alarms about the risks posed by artificial intelligence and other technological tools that can manipulate video content, altering the words spoken by judges or lawyers.

The Chief Justice shared his own experiences of being misquoted, stating, "I have faced this, not in video but in print. What I never said was attributed to me."

He recounted a recent instance where a request was made to list a case, but it was reported that he refused to hear it, despite no petition being filed by the deadline.

As the bench prepared to issue notices regarding the petition, Singh urged for an interim order to address the situation.

The bench remarked, "We cannot contain a demon that has escaped from the box," stressing the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial institution.

In its interim directive, the bench instructed the secretary general of the Supreme Court and the registrar generals of the high courts to publish the order on the official court website for public awareness.

The petition argued that while live-streaming and video conferencing of court proceedings were introduced to enhance transparency and public access to justice, the lack of a regulatory framework for the re-publication and monetization of such content has led to widespread misuse.

It stated, "Isolated courtroom exchanges, oral observations, and preliminary remarks are often taken out of context and circulated without the necessary factual or legal background."

The petition further noted that such clips are frequently accompanied by misleading captions and sensational commentary aimed at maximizing public engagement and commercial profit.

Unchecked dissemination of this content has subjected judges, lawyers, and litigants to undue criticism, trolling, and reputational damage.

Most importantly, it threatens to erode public trust in the justice system by creating distorted and incomplete narratives about judicial proceedings.