Supreme Court bars recording, sharing of court proceedings without permission

Directing the secretary general of the Supreme Court and registrar general of high courts to display this order on their court websites, the bench said, “This order shall have no bearing on news reporting.”

The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) by journalist Harshita Grover highlighting “increasing misuse of audiovisual recordings of judicial proceedings through selective clipping, editing, decontextualised circulation, and commercial exploitation on social media and digital platforms.”

‘Clips circulated without context’

The plea said, “While live-streaming and video-conferencing of court proceedings were introduced to advance the principles of open justice, transparency, and public access to the judicial process, the absence of any regulatory framework governing the republication and monetisation of such material has resulted in widespread misuse.”

“Isolated courtroom exchanges, oral observations, and preliminary remarks are frequently extracted from lengthy hearings and circulated without the factual or legal context in which they were made. Such clips are often accompanied by misleading captions, sensational commentary, and clickbait headlines designed to maximise public engagement and commercial gain,” the PIL added.

It added that the unchecked circulation of such content had exposed judges, advocates and litigants to unwarranted criticism, trolling, vilification, and reputational harm. “More importantly, it risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice by creating distorted and incomplete narratives regarding judicial proceedings,” it further said.

The Supreme Court asked the various high courts to submit reports on the adoption of its livestreaming guidelines. It also asked the Centre to appraise which ministries could implement the reliefs prayed for.

AI tools flagged

Appearing for Grover, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh expressed his apprehensions on clips of hearings being edited and circulated on social media.

“I personally don’t see any problem with livestream,” he said, referring to the recent instance of a hearing before a bench of Justice K V Viswanathan, wherein the petitioner threw files and used abusive words, going viral on social media. “Adding words and showing clips is also happening,” he added.

Justice Bagchi said that once such live streams are uploaded on digital platforms, it becomes difficult to manage their circulation. “Regulating data is one of the biggest challenges in digital space… so we should ensure limited access and therefore restrict livestream itself. Parties must expressly make a prayer that they want to see. It can’t be a 24/7 entertainment channel by court…That belittles the justice system,” Justice Bagchi said.

He added, “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.”

Solicitor General Tushar Metha pointed to the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) and said some tools can alter the words spoken by someone while preserving the lip movements.

“Suppose your lordships are saying something to me and I am responding. There are AI tools. With the same lip movement, my and your lordships’ words can be changed in our respective voices,” Mehta said, adding that the consequences can be unimaginable.

The CJI said he had already experienced his words being distorted in the print media. “In the print forum, I have already experienced. What I never said was thrust upon me by these people,” the CJI remarked.