New Delhi: Observing that courts can’t be a 24×7 entertainment channel, the Supreme Court Friday barred posting and uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission of the court administration.
Taking note of the misuse of audio-visual recordings of judicial proceedings, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the interim order while agreeing to hear a plea seeking to restrain unauthorised extraction, modification, dissemination or monetisation of such recordings.
“As an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be no extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting and uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without prior permission of the secretary general of this court or the registrar general of the jurisdictional high courts,” the bench said.
The bench, however, clarified that its order would not affect news reporting of court proceedings.
The top court also issued notices to the Centre and others, including some social media platforms, seeking their responses on the plea filed by journalist Harshita Grover.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, said the issue raised in the petition was very important.
Referring to the misuse of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings, he said selective and edited clippings were being circulated on social media and other digital platforms.
The bench said regulating digital data has become one of the biggest challenges.
“It can’t be a 24×7 entertainment channel by the court,” the bench observed, adding that there was a need to ensure limited access.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed with Singh’s submissions and said there has to be some regulation.
Singh referred to a July 10 incident when a litigant appearing in person before an apex court bench allegedly hurled abuses and threw his legal papers during the hearing of his petition.
He said the video of the incident was widely circulated on social media, turning it into a joke.
Mehta said recordings of court proceedings were being misused and people were picking up a particular portion, giving it a particular narrative and colour and making it viral in the virtual world.
He also flagged the potential danger posed by artificial intelligence and other IT tools, which can manipulate videos by altering or changing the words spoken by judges or lawyers during court proceedings.
The CJI said that he has experienced how some of his comments were recently misreported.
“I have experienced this, not in video but in the print form. What I never said was thrust upon me,” he said.
He said recently, a mention was made before his bench to list a matter.
“Till 10 am today, no petition has been filed,” the CJI said, adding that it was reported in the media that he refused to hear the matter.
When the bench said it was issuing notices on the petition, Singh said some interim order was needed to deal with the issue.
“We can’t stop a demon which is out of the box,” the bench observed, adding that there was a need to ensure that sanctity of the institution is maintained.
While passing the interim direction, the bench asked the secretary general of the apex court and the registrar generals of the high courts to display its order on the official court website for public information.
The plea said while live-streaming and videoconferencing 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 re-publication 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,” it said.
“Such clips are often accompanied by misleading captions, sensational commentary, and clickbait headlines designed to maximise public engagement and commercial gain,” the plea said.
It also said that unchecked circulation of such content has 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,” the plea said.
