Supreme Court Bars Unauthorized Sharing of Live-Streamed Court Proceedings on Social Media

According to the directive of the Supreme Court of India, nobody can upload, share, save, or circulate video clips of court proceedings without permission from the authorities concerned. This directive was issued in light of the growing apprehension about the misuse of the edited courtroom videos on social media, misleading narratives, and AI-generated videos that could mislead the people and undermine their faith in the justice system. The Court has further cautioned that if the misuse of the live-streaming of court proceedings continues, it will reconsider its decision of allowing this facility to be used.

What Did the Supreme Court Direct?

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana ordered the restriction of the distribution of videos of court proceedings online.

In details of the order,

1. Videos recorded during court proceedings cannot be posted, shared, or transmitted on any platform without prior consent.
2. The applicable authority that has to be approached for obtaining permission is the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the respective High Court.
3. The order covers all the means of distributing courtroom videos online.
4. The Supreme Court clarified that the order is merely provisional before the matter is heard in detail.

What Led to the Supreme Court Reprimanding These Act?

The Court was worried that edited videos from courtrooms were getting circulated with the help of,

• Misleading edits.
• Biased arguments.
• Attention-grabbing titles.
• Sensational thumbnail photos.
• Narratives produced by artificial intelligence.

The Court stated that these practices have the potential to distort the information related to the judicial system. Moreover, it may harm the overall public trust in the judicial system.

According to the judges, the judicial proceedings should not be turned into some entertainment contents.

Concern Over AI and False Information

In the hearing, the Solicitor General, Mehta, raised the issue of the increasing misuse of Artificial Intelligence for creating and spreading false narratives.

He raised the point that AI technologies have made it easier to manipulate courtroom content and increased the possibility of the,

• Misleading information.
• Distorted judicial observations.
• Coordinated operations concerning the judiciary.
• Widespread distribution of misleading content.

Petition Revisits the Misuse of Courtroom Footage

The issue emanated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the journalist Harshita Grover.

The petition contends that while the right to report fairly on judicial proceedings is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the same does not cover,

• Inaccurate reporting.
• Misrepresentation of the proceedings.
• Sensationalism.
• Obstruction of justice.
• Compromising judicial bodies.

The petition directs that regulations be put in place to stop abuse of live telecasting of court proceedings.

Lawyers Using Court Footage to Promote Services

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who is representing the case, has voiced his apprehension over the actions of some lawyers who put their courtroom footage on social media platforms for marketing services.

He stated that,

• Such activities count as indirect promotion.
• According to The Advocates Act, lawyers cannot conduct marketing of their services by means of advertising.
• Some law firms involved public relations agencies to enhance their visibility in the media.

The Supreme Court has asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to explain their position on this matter.

Can Live Streaming Be Curbed?

The Bench noted that persistent abuse of court proceedings might result in the courts reevaluating the practice of live streaming.

The judges remarked that judicial proceedings should not be allowed to turn into a “24/7 entertainment network.”

The Court hinted that if the situation demands, access to live-stream events may subsequently be limited only to,

• Lawyers.
• Parties to a case.
• Other permitted stakeholders.

But Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appealed to the Court not to stop the process of live streaming by arguing that it increases the transparency of court proceedings and round-the-clock public confidence in the judicial system.