Supreme Court Bars Uploading, Sharing of Court Hearing Audio-Video Without Prior Permission
The Supreme Court has issued an important interim order prohibiting the uploading, reposting, editing, extraction, dissemination, recording, or monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior approval from the concerned court authorities. The restriction applies to recordings of proceedings before the Supreme Court as well as High Courts and is intended to prevent the misuse of courtroom footage in the digital age.
The order was passed by a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, while hearing a public interest litigation filed by journalist Harshita Grover. The petition highlighted the growing trend of selectively clipping courtroom exchanges, editing them out of context, and circulating them across social media platforms, often accompanied by sensational captions or misleading narratives that distort judicial proceedings.
As an interim safeguard, the Court directed that no person or platform may post, repost, extract, modify, disseminate, upload, or commercially exploit audiovisual recordings of court proceedings without obtaining prior permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the concerned High Court. The Court also instructed judicial registries to prominently display the order on their official websites to ensure wider public awareness.
While imposing the restriction, the Bench clarified that the order does not prohibit or restrict legitimate news reporting of court proceedings. Accredited media organisations and journalists remain free to report on hearings in accordance with established legal and journalistic standards. The Court stressed that the interim measure is directed only against the unauthorised digital circulation and commercial exploitation of official courtroom recordings.
During the hearing, the judges expressed concern that courts were increasingly becoming the subject of viral social media content. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that courts “cannot be a 24×7 entertainment channel,” warning that isolated clips stripped of legal context can mislead the public, damage the reputation of judges, lawyers, and litigants, and ultimately erode confidence in the justice delivery system.
The Bench also took note of emerging technological threats, particularly artificial intelligence. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that modern AI tools are capable of manipulating audio and video while preserving facial movements, making it possible to fabricate statements that were never actually made. The judges acknowledged that such technologies significantly increase the risks associated with unrestricted circulation of courtroom recordings.
Alongside the interim ban, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to submit reports on the implementation of existing live-streaming guidelines and sought information on the impact of continuous live-streaming of judicial proceedings. The Court indicated that it may revisit the broader framework governing live-streaming and public access to court proceedings after receiving these reports and considering the issues raised in the PIL.
The order represents one of the judiciary’s strongest responses to the challenges posed by social media, digital platforms, and AI-driven content manipulation. While reaffirming the constitutional principle of open justice, the Supreme Court has signalled that transparency must be balanced with safeguards against misinformation, selective editing, and misuse of official court proceedings in an increasingly digital public sphere.
