Observing that the misuse of video clips from livestreamed court proceedings was “trivialising” the administration of justice, the Supreme Court on Friday (July 24, 2026) barred the extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading and monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the court registrars concerned.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the interim order while issuing notice on a public interest litigation petition seeking safeguards against the misuse of livestreamed court proceedings through selective clipping and “commercial exploitation”.
The petition, filed by journalist Harshita Grover, contended that “isolated excerpts” of judicial proceedings were being clipped, circulated and monetised in a manner that undermined the sanctity and dignity of the judicial process. It argued that while livestreaming has advanced transparency and public access to the justice system, the absence of adequate safeguards has enabled courtroom exchanges to be taken out of context and disseminated for “sensationalism” and “commercial gain”.
“As an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be no extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting or uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the jurisdictional High Courts,” the Bench directed.
The Bench, however, clarified that the embargo would not extend to news reporting of court proceedings. It also directed the Supreme Court and all High Courts to upload the order on their official websites.
“This order shall have no bearing on news reporting,” the Bench said.
Justice Mohana also remarked that the court was not attempting to pass a “gag order” on the press, but was merely giving effect to the Supreme Court’s 2022 ‘Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings’, which prohibit the recording, sharing or dissemination of livestreamed court proceedings by unauthorised persons.
Appearing for Ms. Grover, senior advocate Vikas Singh expressed concern over edited clips of court proceedings being circulated on social media. Referring to an incident on July 10, he recalled how a petitioner appearing in person had hurled a bundle of papers towards a Bench headed by Justice K.V. Viswanathan during a hearing. The petitioner, Prabal Pratap, had addressed the Bench as “Mr. Judicial Servant” while demanding that the judges direct action against a senior police officer posted in Lucknow.
Citing the episode as an instance of how courtroom proceedings could be distorted and sensationalised online, Mr. Singh said, “Your Lordships, what happened in Justice Viswanathan’s court... He was magnanimous. He did not take any action. He should have taken some action. That small video has now become a joke all over the country, as if showing our judiciary is something like that”.
Agreeing that livestreaming of judicial proceedings was being exploited, Justice Bagchi observed that regulatory safeguards had become necessary.
“...we should ensure limited access and therefore restrict livestreaming itself. Parties must expressly make a prayer that they want to see. It can’t be a 24/7 entertainment channel for courts. The access and availability of electronic records and data of court proceedings are becoming a collateral threat to the very administration of justice. This is trivialising justice,” he said.
Justice Bagchi also suggested that, as a court of record, the Supreme Court could maintain a digital archive of recorded proceedings, with access being granted to authorised persons whenever necessary.
“As a repositor, what we can do is we can have recordings of the proceedings kept archived in the court records. It can be disclosed and divulged to persons interested, subject to prevailing restrictions,” he said.
The Bench also pointed out that virtual hearing links were often shared indiscriminately, facilitating the unauthorised dissemination of court proceedings.
Supporting the petition, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence had made it easier to manipulate videos of court proceedings.
“There are AI tools. With the same lip movement, my and Your Lordships’ words can be changed in our respective voices,” he said, warning that doctored clips could be used to misrepresent courtroom proceedings and shape misleading public narratives.
The Bench also called upon the Union government to identify the nodal Ministries that would be responsible for implementing any future regulatory framework and to furnish a list of intermediaries that should be impleaded in the proceedings. It further directed all High Courts to submit reports on the implementation of the Supreme Court’s livestreaming guidelines, including the impact of continuous livestreaming of court proceedings.
The court posted the matter for further hearing next week to consider the responses sought from the authorities.
The petition contends that the misuse of recordings of judicial proceedings has a “chilling effect” on the functioning of both judges and lawyers by exposing them to “character assassination” and “public trolling” based on selective and out-of-context clips.
“The courtroom exchange between judges and advocates is magnified, distorted, and circulated out of proportion. The petitioner submits that such circulation does not merely amount to criticism; rather, it creates a climate of hostility, misinformation, and deliberate sensationalism around judicial proceedings, thereby undermining public confidence in the administration of justice,” the plea states.
The apex court began livestreaming proceedings before its Constitution Benches in September 2022 as part of a broader push to make judicial proceedings more transparent and accessible to the public. The move followed the court’s September 2018 ruling in Swapnil Tripathi v. Union of India, which had declared live telecast of court proceedings part of the right to access justice under Article 21 of the Constitution, stating that livestreaming would “virtually” expand the court beyond the four walls of the courtroom.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court’s e-Committee, headed by then CJI Chandrachud, came out with model guidelines to regulate livestreaming of court proceedings in India.
In February 2023, the Supreme Court became the first court in India to introduce AI-assisted live transcription of its proceedings. Announcing the initiative, then CJI Chandrachud had said the technology would create a reliable archival record of court proceedings while serving as a valuable resource for the judiciary.
Published - July 24, 2026 02:43 pm IST