The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concern over the commercial exploitation of live-streamed court proceedings, observing that the unauthorised use of hearing videos for monetisation, personal publicity and misleading representation has caused serious harm to the judiciary. The Court directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to prepare a proposal after considering suggestions from High Courts and other stakeholders to address the problem.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed in Harshita Grover v. Union of India & Ors, seeking restrictions on the unauthorised extraction, circulation and commercial use of recordings of judicial proceedings.
During the hearing, the Bench clarified that it had no intention of restricting live-streaming or preventing the public from accessing information about court proceedings. Its concern was limited to the misuse of recordings for commercial purposes, selective presentation and professional promotion.
CJI Surya Kant observed that live-streaming was intended to improve public understanding of judicial proceedings, but certain channels were using the recordings to generate revenue and promote individuals. He emphasised that allowing commercial exploitation of material made available for public benefit would undermine the purpose of live-streaming.
The Chief Justice also stressed that reporting on court proceedings must remain fair and accurate, and that live-streaming should not become a means of misquoting or misrepresenting judges.
Court Flags Use of Hearing Videos for Lawyers’ Professional Promotion
Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised concerns about lawyers using extracts from live-streamed hearings to advertise their professional services.
He pointed out that the Bar Council of India prohibits advocates from canvassing for professional gain. However, portions of court proceedings were being uploaded to personal profiles for publicity and professional benefits, raising concerns about compliance with the principles governing the legal profession.
Justice Bagchi also discussed the technological difficulties involved in preventing the extraction of live-streamed content. He explained that even where restrictions on downloading or copying recordings are introduced, individuals could bypass them by recording their screens.
The judge said technological assistance and further examination were necessary to address such practices. He also indicated that the three principal digital platforms could respond to the concerns raised.
The Court is examining arrangements for adequate storage facilities, including cloud-based systems, to preserve live-streamed proceedings. Justice Bagchi noted that access to such recordings could be provided through appropriate mechanisms, including the Right to Information framework.
Selective Uploading of Court Hearings Also Questioned
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan drew attention to the practice of uploading short excerpts from lengthy hearings, sometimes accompanied by unrelated or misleading descriptions.
He explained that a hearing lasting 30 minutes could be reduced to a four-minute video, potentially presenting an incomplete picture of what occurred in court.
To prevent such misuse, he suggested that any reproduction of proceedings should include the complete hearing rather than selected portions. He also proposed prohibiting the addition of titles or descriptions to such videos.
Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, meanwhile, argued that citizens have a right to know what happens in court and maintained that the government could not suppress public opinion.
Responding to these submissions, CJI Surya Kant reiterated that the Court was not considering any restriction on live-streaming itself. Instead, it was examining measures to prevent individuals and channels from extracting recordings for advertising, monetisation, personal promotion or misleading presentation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also referred to YouTube channels that continued uploading videos of court proceedings. He submitted that there should be no objection to directing channels engaged in unauthorised uploading to discontinue the practice.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan pointed out that the Central government had not yet filed its response to the petition.
Solicitor General Asked to Prepare Proposal After Stakeholder Consultations
Following the submissions, the Supreme Court directed that suggestions received from the parties and other stakeholders be forwarded to the office of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
The Court granted time for filing a counter-affidavit along with a proposal prepared after considering the suggestions received.
The Bench also expressed concern about the damage caused to the legal profession and the judiciary by the misuse of live-streamed proceedings.
Earlier Restrictions on Unauthorised Circulation to Continue
The proceedings arise from a petition challenging the unauthorised extraction and commercial use of videos from court hearings.
In an earlier interim order, the Supreme Court had restrained the unauthorised posting and circulation of live-streamed proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission.
The Court had also issued notices to all States seeking their responses and asked the Central government to examine whether the reliefs sought in the petition could be implemented.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court clarified that its directions did not prevent recognised news organisations from reporting on judicial proceedings.
However, it maintained that media organisations must comply with the existing restrictions concerning the use and circulation of audio and video recordings of hearings.
The matter will now proceed after the Central government submits its response and the Solicitor General places the proposed measures before the Court.
