In a significant move to uphold the dignity of the judiciary, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has restrained social media platforms, media agencies, and the general public from unauthorized use of live-streamed court proceedings. The ruling comes in response to a petition by Dr. Vijay Bajaj, who highlighted the growing trend of court footage being edited and shared online as memes, reels, and shorts, often in ways that undermine the sanctity of the legal system.
The case, titled Dr. Vijay Bajaj v. Union of India & Others (WP No. 30572 of 2024), was heard by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain. The bench issued a strict interim order, prohibiting any unauthorized editing or distribution of the court’s live-streamed videos across social platforms. Chief Justice Kait emphasized, “The dignity and decorum of the judicial process cannot be compromised for the sake of online amusement and profit.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Dr. Vijay Bajaj, represented by Advocate Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, raised concerns over social media’s misuse of court videos, which were being transformed into “memes,” “reels,” and “shorts” with sensational captions and edits. These videos were reportedly circulating widely on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and WhatsApp, attracting substantial viewership and revenue. According to Dr. Bajaj, Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and others used the footage for entertainment and monetization, with some users even engaging in mockery of judges and lawyers, as well as making defamatory comments on judicial proceedings.
The petitioner argued that such practices grossly violate the Madhya Pradesh Live-Streaming and Recording Rules for Court Proceedings, 2021, which outline specific restrictions on handling and sharing live-streamed court content. Dr. Bajaj called on the court to enforce these rules stringently and hold violators accountable under relevant legal provisions.
Key Legal Issues
Several critical legal issues came under scrutiny in this case, focusing primarily on maintaining the integrity of live-streamed court footage:
1. Unauthorized Use and Copyright Violation: The court addressed Rule 11(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Live-Streaming Rules for Court Proceedings, 2021, which grants the judiciary exclusive copyright over its streamed content. This rule prohibits any person or platform from reproducing, editing, or transmitting court footage without authorization, warning that violators could face legal action under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Copyright Act, 1957.
2. Impact on Judicial Decorum: Chief Justice Kait and Justice Jain expressed concern over how the conversion of serious court proceedings into casual content for profit degrades public trust in the judicial system. They echoed the petitioner’s sentiments that the justice system should not be trivialized through such portrayals. The court observed that the “misuse of live court proceedings jeopardizes the dignity of the judicial institution.”
3. Proposed Monitoring Mechanisms: The petitioner suggested that the court consider establishing a Command and Control Center at the High Court in Jabalpur and similar setups at district levels to monitor live streams and prevent misuse. Additionally, Dr. Bajaj advocated for a 20-minute time delay in live-streaming to provide a buffer against inappropriate content reaching the public.
Court’s Interim Order and Observations
After reviewing the submissions, the court issued an interim order restraining Respondents Nos. 5 to 7, along with all social media platforms, media agencies, and individuals, from unauthorized editing, sharing, or morphing of live-streamed court proceedings. The bench also directed that any content previously uploaded in violation of Rule 11(b) be removed immediately from all platforms.
In an important observation, the court stated, “Justice is not a spectacle, and the proceedings of the court must be treated with the solemnity they deserve.” The bench further clarified that if any media platform intends to share court content, it must strictly adhere to the limitations outlined in the 2021 Rules, which restrict the content’s usage to informational and educational purposes only.
The court has given Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, including the Union of India and the state of Madhya Pradesh, four weeks to submit a counter-affidavit addressing the petitioner’s concerns. The High Court is set to review the progress in six weeks, during which it will monitor the adherence to its interim order and the steps taken by respondents to enforce the guidelines strictly.
