The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that it may frame a regulatory framework to curb the unauthorised clipping, uploading, reposting and monetisation of videos of court proceedings on social media, while reaffirming its commitment to the principle of open justice. The hearing took place in a public interest litigation seeking safeguards against the misuse of audiovisual recordings of judicial proceedings.
During the hearing, the Bench expressed concern that selective extraction of courtroom exchanges, accompanied by misleading captions and narratives, was increasingly being used to sensationalise judicial proceedings and portray the judiciary in a poor light. The Court observed that while court proceedings should remain accessible, they should not become a 24/7 entertainment channel.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh urged the Court to adopt provisions similar to the Model Live-Streaming Rules, particularly those prohibiting unauthorised recording, extraction and dissemination of court proceedings. He submitted that the principal challenge today is not live streaming itself but the implementation of safeguards against misuse after proceedings enter the public domain. He also suggested that recordings of proceedings should remain archived as part of the court record and be made available only through a regulated mechanism.
The Bench acknowledged the growing threat posed by artificial intelligence, noting that AI tools can manipulate courtroom videos and even alter voices and lip movements, thereby creating false narratives. The Court observed that the potential misuse of such technology presents a serious challenge to the administration of justice.
The Court also discussed whether audiovisual recordings of court proceedings should be protected through copyright, observing that such protection could provide an additional legal remedy against unauthorised reproduction and circulation. It further considered invoking provisions of the Information Technology Act and issuing directions to major social media intermediaries, including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and X, to ensure compliance with any regulatory framework eventually put in place.
Several members of the Bar supported the need for regulation, arguing that short, edited courtroom clips are routinely stripped of context, generating viral but misleading narratives and exposing judges and advocates to trolling and reputational harm. At the same time, the Bench clarified that it was not opposed to open courts or fair reporting, but sought to ensure that judicial proceedings are not distorted through unauthorised clipping, uploading, reposting or monetisation.
The petitioner sought permission to amend the pleadings to implead relevant social media intermediaries and place additional material on record. Accepting the request, the Court directed that the amended pleadings be filed and listed the matter for further consideration after the proposed parties are served, so that they may explain the practical issues involved in implementing any directions.