The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that it would issue a limited clarification to its earlier interim order regulating the recording and uploading of court proceedings, making it clear that the clarification would specifically address concerns relating to reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets. The Court said a comprehensive protocol governing the use of live-stream recordings would be framed after receiving suggestions from all stakeholders.
The Court will issue clarification today regarding paragraph 11 of the Court’s earlier order, which had given rise to confusion. Paragraph 11 states: “However, it is clarified that this order shall have no bearing on the reporting of Court proceedings by recognized news outlets.”
“
“Regarding para 11, there is some confusion… some queries have come. Only a very minor clarification we’ll give today. Rest, the main detailed protocol we will lay down only after.”
At the outset, the Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Bench that it had written to all State Bar Councils requesting them to publicise the Supreme Court’s earlier order regulating the recording and uploading of court proceedings. Counsel submitted that the Court’s order, along with the BCI circular, had been placed on record.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervener, submitted that while misuse of recordings of court proceedings needed to be prevented, the issue had already been substantially addressed in the Supreme Court’s decisions in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India: (2018) 10 SCC 639 & Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar: (2021) 18 SCC 157. He suggested that courts should maintain official archives of live-streamed proceedings and that anyone wishing to use video clips should source them only from those official archives, thereby preventing misuse and commercial exploitation of unofficial recordings.
The Bench observed that the proceedings were not adversarial in nature and invited all interveners and stakeholders, including various High Courts, to place their suggestions before the Court. It accordingly allowed the intervention applications to enable the applicants to assist the Court in framing an appropriate framework.
During the hearing, appearances were also recorded on behalf of several High Courts, including the Madras High Court, Jharkhand High Court and Tripura High Court, with counsel informing the Bench that affidavits and suggestions had already been filed or would shortly be placed on record.