New Delhi, July 25: In a landmark move aimed at preserving the credibility of the judicial system, the Supreme Court on Friday issued an interim directive prohibiting the circulation of video excerpts from live streamed court proceedings on social media and digital platforms without prior permission from the court concerned.
The order seeks to prevent the misuse of judicial proceedings through edited videos, misleading captions and selective clips that can distort the context of hearings and influence public opinion.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed that the unrestricted circulation of courtroom footage has increasingly led to misrepresentation of judicial proceedings, prompting the need for immediate safeguards.
Prior Approval Made Mandatory
Under the interim directions, any individual, organisation or digital platform intending to publish or share audiovisual extracts from live-streamed hearings must first obtain approval from either the Supreme Court or the respective High Court.
The directive was issued while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Harshita Grover. Representing the petitioner, senior advocate Vikas Singh argued that edited courtroom clips are frequently uploaded online with selective commentary designed to create false or biased narratives about judges and judicial proceedings.
He submitted that such content often removes important legal context, leaving viewers with an incomplete and sometimes inaccurate understanding of the proceedings.
Government and Social Media Platforms Asked to Respond
Recognising the broader implications of the issue, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union government, various High Courts and leading social media companies, directing them to file their responses within two weeks.
The platforms covered by the notice include YouTube, X, WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram, all of which have witnessed a growing volume of courtroom-related content following the introduction of live streaming facilities.
The court intends to examine whether additional legal or technological measures are necessary to regulate the unauthorised distribution of judicial content on digital platforms.
Artificial Intelligence Adds to Concerns
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the petition, stating that rapid advances in artificial intelligence have made it easier to manipulate videos and create misleading content capable of spreading quickly across social media.
He warned that AI-generated edits, altered voiceovers and deceptive visual presentations could seriously undermine public confidence in the judiciary if left unchecked.
According to the law officer, technological developments have increased the urgency of creating safeguards that protect the authenticity of court proceedings while preserving transparency.
Questions Raised Over Lawyers Using Court Clips
During the hearing, senior advocate Vikas Singh also expressed concern over certain lawyers allegedly using courtroom videos as promotional material to increase their public visibility and attract potential clients.
He argued that such practices amount to indirect advertising, which is prohibited under the Advocates Act and professional ethics governing the legal profession.
Taking note of the submission, the bench sought the views of the Bar Council of India on whether stricter professional guidelines are required to prevent misuse of judicial proceedings for personal publicity.
Court Warns Against Turning Hearings into Entertainment
The bench remarked that the increasing misuse of live streamed proceedings had become serious enough for the court to even consider discontinuing live streaming if effective regulation cannot be ensured.
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that judicial proceedings are intended to promote transparency and public awareness, not to become material for entertainment or sensational content on digital platforms.
He indicated that if existing safeguards prove insufficient, the court may revisit the policy governing live-streaming of hearings in the future.
Transparency Must Be Preserved
Responding to the court’s observations, Vikas Singh maintained that live streaming has significantly improved public access to justice and enhanced transparency since its wider adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic.
He argued that the solution lies in regulating misuse rather than limiting public access to judicial proceedings.
The petitioner, Harshita Grover, also emphasised that while fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19, deliberately edited or misleading content cannot claim the same protection.
According to the petition, sensational headlines, manipulated thumbnails and selective video editing have increasingly distorted public understanding of judicial proceedings and weakened trust in the justice delivery system.
Balancing Openness with Judicial Dignity
The case has brought into focus the challenge of balancing transparency in the justice system with the need to preserve the dignity and credibility of courts in the digital era.
As social media continues to amplify courtroom content at an unprecedented scale, the Supreme Court’s interim order marks an important step toward establishing clear boundaries for the use of judicial proceedings online.
The matter will now be taken up after responses are received from the government, the High Courts, the Bar Council of India and the social media platforms, following which the Supreme Court is expected to consider a comprehensive framework governing the digital dissemination of court proceedings.