Key Highlights

• The Supreme Court has prohibited the unauthorised extraction, editing, sharing, uploading and monetisation of audio and video recordings of court proceedings.
• The interim order requires prior permission from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.
• The court clarified that the order does not restrict fair and accurate news reporting of judicial proceedings.
• The Bench expressed concern over edited clips, misleading social media content and AI-driven manipulation of courtroom videos.
• The Centre, all High Courts and major social media platforms have been asked to respond to the petition.

Supreme Court Issues Interim Order on Court Hearing Videos

In a significant move aimed at preventing the misuse of judicial proceedings online, the Supreme Court of India has passed an interim order prohibiting the unauthorised extraction, editing, sharing, reposting, uploading or monetisation of audio and video recordings of court hearings.

The court said that such recordings cannot be circulated on social media or digital platforms without prior permission from the competent court authority.

The order was passed while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing and commercial use of audiovisual recordings of court proceedings.

Prior Permission Now Mandatory

Under the interim directions, anyone wishing to use audio or video recordings of court proceedings must first obtain approval from:

• The Registrar General of the concerned High Court, or
• The Secretary General of the Supreme Court, depending on the court where the proceedings took place.

The Bench directed that, until further orders, no person may:

• Extract courtroom recordings.
• Edit or modify videos.
• Upload or repost clips.
• Share recordings on digital platforms.
• Monetise judicial proceedings.

Court Clarifies: Fair News Reporting Will Continue

While restricting unauthorised circulation of courtroom recordings, the Supreme Court made it clear that the interim order does not prevent fair and factual reporting of judicial proceedings by the media.

The court emphasised that the objective is to prevent misleading or manipulated content rather than restrict legitimate journalism.

“Courts Cannot Become 24x7 Entertainment Channels”

During the hearing, the Bench expressed concern over the growing trend of selectively edited courtroom clips going viral online.

Observing that unrestricted circulation of hearing videos could undermine the dignity of judicial proceedings, the judges remarked:

"It can't be a 24x7 entertainment channel by the court."

The Bench also suggested that livestreaming of proceedings should be carefully regulated to ensure that transparency is balanced with responsible use of judicial content.

Petition Raises Concerns Over Misleading Edited Clips

The petition was filed by journalist Harshita Grover, who sought guidelines governing the recording, editing and redistribution of court proceedings.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that the plea was not opposed to livestreaming itself.

Instead, he argued that short, selectively edited clips often circulate without context, creating misleading public narratives and affecting the credibility of the judiciary.

He referred to the Supreme Court's existing Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, which already prohibit unauthorised recording, reproduction and republication without prior approval.

AI Manipulation Also Raises Concerns

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned the court about the increasing risk posed by artificial intelligence.

He argued that AI tools could alter courtroom recordings by changing spoken words while preserving lip movements, making manipulated videos appear authentic.

According to the Solicitor General, such technology could create false narratives and damage public trust in judicial proceedings.

The Bench acknowledged these concerns while discussing the challenges of regulating digital content.

High Courts and Social Media Platforms Asked to Respond

The Supreme Court has:

• Issued notices to the Union Government.
• Asked all High Courts to submit reports on the implementation of livestreaming guidelines.
• Directed the Centre to identify the appropriate ministries responsible for implementing any future regulatory framework.
• Issued notices to major social media intermediaries, including Meta and X, seeking their responses.

The High Courts have also been asked to explain how continuous livestreaming has affected judicial proceedings and whether additional safeguards are necessary.

Why the Supreme Court Issed the Order

The petition argues that although livestreaming was introduced to improve transparency and uphold the principle of open justice, the absence of a clear regulatory framework has enabled:

• Selective editing of courtroom exchanges.
• Misleading captions.
• Sensational social media posts.
• Clickbait content.
• Commercial exploitation of judicial proceedings.
• Online trolling and reputational harm to judges, lawyers and litigants.

The petition seeks a balanced framework that preserves transparency while preventing misuse of judicial recordings.

Why This Order Matters

The interim order represents one of the judiciary's strongest steps so far to address the growing misuse of courtroom content in the digital era.

As AI-generated content and social media editing tools become increasingly sophisticated, the court has signalled that judicial transparency must be accompanied by safeguards against misinformation and manipulation.

The matter will now proceed after responses are received from the Union Government, High Courts and social media platforms.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What has the Supreme Court ordered?

The Supreme Court has prohibited the unauthorised extraction, editing, sharing, uploading and monetisation of audio and video recordings of court proceedings without prior permission.

Does this ban news reporting?

No. The court clarified that fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings is not affected by the interim order.

Who must grant permission to share courtroom videos?

Permission must be obtained from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, depending on the court involved.

Why did the Supreme Court issue this order?

The court acted over concerns that selectively edited courtroom clips and AI-manipulated videos could mislead the public and undermine confidence in the judiciary.

Which platforms have received notices?

The court has issued notices to major social media platforms, including Meta and X, along with the Union Government and all High Courts.

Is livestreaming of court proceedings banned?

No. The interim order does not ban livestreaming but regulates the unauthorised use and redistribution of recordings. The broader issue of livestreaming practices remains under consideration.