SC asks Centre to 'act against unauthorised sharing' of courtroom videos

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to incorporate provisions for action against those violating its earlier orders prohibiting the unauthorised circulation and commercial exploitation of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the direction while hearing petitions concerning the live-streaming, recording and publication of court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms.

The court was informed that the Centre was preparing a policy to address concerns over the unauthorised extraction, manipulation, misrepresentation and monetisation of courtroom recordings. It emphasised that the proposed framework must also provide measures to ensure compliance with its existing directions.

𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that suggestions received from various High Courts, lawyers and other stakeholders had been forwarded to MeitY for consideration while preparing the proposed policy.

Mehta also drew the court's attention to instances where its earlier restrictions on the circulation of courtroom videos had allegedly been violated. He requested the bench to consider directing the removal of content uploaded in breach of its orders.

Taking note of the submissions, the bench directed that the proposed policy must include appropriate measures for taking action against those who fail to comply with the restrictions.

The proceedings arose from a batch of petitions, including one filed by Harshita Grover, seeking safeguards against the unauthorised extraction, editing, circulation and commercial use of videos of judicial proceedings.

𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼𝘀

During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervenor, suggested establishing an authenticated repository of courtroom recordings on the Supreme Court's official website.

He proposed that recordings be protected through digital watermarks and cryptographic signatures, allowing viewers and online platforms to distinguish genuine footage from manipulated or misleading clips.

Bhushan argued that making authenticated recordings available through an official repository could help address concerns about misrepresentation while preserving public access to judicial proceedings.

Justice Bagchi responded that similar safeguards were already under consideration on the administrative side. He said certain High Courts had introduced arrangements to prevent the extraction of video clips from their official YouTube channels.

However, the bench acknowledged the practical difficulties of preventing unauthorised recordings, particularly when individuals use secondary devices to capture courtroom proceedings.

𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱

The hearing also witnessed a discussion on whether journalists, YouTubers and legal commentators should be required to obtain prior permission before using excerpts from official recordings of court proceedings.

Bhushan questioned the restrictions, arguing that requiring permission for the use of authenticated clips could create difficulties for legitimate reporting and conflict with the principle of open justice recognised by the Supreme Court.

Justice Bagchi maintained that judicial supervision was necessary to determine the extent of footage being extracted and the purpose for which it would be used.

The bench also emphasised that even authenticated recordings could not be commercially exploited without the requisite approval.

Mehta argued that the monetisation of courtroom footage by content creators did not necessarily serve a public purpose. Bhushan, however, raised concerns about the implications of such restrictions for those reporting on legal proceedings.

The court indicated that these concerns would be examined at an appropriate stage.

𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲

On July 24, the Supreme Court had prohibited the extraction, dissemination, monetisation, uploading, modification, storage and hosting of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without prior permission.

Under the order, permission must be obtained from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrars General of the respective High Courts.

The court subsequently clarified that the restrictions did not prevent recognised news organisations from reporting judicial proceedings. However, media outlets were also required to comply with the prohibition on circulating audio or video recordings without authorisation.

During an earlier hearing on October 9, the bench reiterated that its directions were not intended to restrict reporting on court proceedings but to prevent the misleading presentation and commercial exploitation of courtroom recordings.

The latest direction requires the Centre to address enforcement alongside the broader regulatory framework, as the Supreme Court continues examining how public access to judicial proceedings can be maintained without allowing their unauthorised or misleading use.