Supreme Court Cracks Down: No More Unauthorized Courtroom Recordings on Social Media

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

New Delhi:24, July,2026- In a significant move to safeguard the integrity of judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court has issued an interim order banning the uploading, sharing, editing, or monetizing of audio and video recordings of court hearings on social media and other digital platforms without explicit prior permission.

This directive aims to curb the growing misuse of selective and decontextualized clips that undermine the dignity of courts and erode public trust.

The interim order, passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, clarifies that this prohibition does not extend to legitimate news reporting of court proceedings.

The ruling comes in response to a public interest litigation filed by journalist Harshita Grover, who highlighted concerns over edited clips going viral and distorting public perception of the judiciary. Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raises an issue of considerable public importance concerning the increasing misuse of audiovisual recordings of judicial proceedings through selective clipping, editing, decontextualized circulation, and commercial exploitation on social media and digital platforms.

The petitioner argues that “While live-streaming and video-conferencing of court proceedings were introduced to advance the principles of open justice, transparency, and public access to the judicial process, the absence of any regulatory framework governing the republication and monetization of such material has resulted in widespread misuse. Isolated courtroom exchanges, oral observations, and preliminary remarks are frequently extracted from lengthy hearings and circulated without the factual or legal context in which they were made.

Such clips are often accompanied by misleading captions, sensational commentary, and clickbait headlines designed to maximize public engagement and commercial gain.”

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner, emphasized that while livestreaming itself is not the issue, the unregulated dissemination of edited content poses a serious threat. Justice Joymalya Bagchi underscored the challenges of regulating digital data, suggesting that livestreaming should be an exception rather than a norm to ensure limited access.

The petitioner is seeking “instances of courtroom exchange between lawyers and judges which are distorted and circulated on social media either in order to mislead the citizens or subject advocates and judges to public pressure.

The Petitioner has personally and through her media sources verified the information and facts pleaded in the present petition. The Petitioner has also made independent verification of facts from a few members of the Bar before filing the present Petition. Additionally, official press release of the BCI and letter of SCORA have been attached with the present Petition were procured from their respective websites.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further supported the plea, warning about the potential for AI tools to manipulate courtroom videos, altering spoken words while retaining authentic lip movements. Chief Justice Kant also acknowledged the increasing problem of misinformation stemming from distorted reporting, citing personal experiences where his comments were misconstrued in print media.

The petition argues that despite livestreaming being introduced for transparency, the lack of safeguards has led to commercial exploitation and sensationalism, exposing judges, lawyers, and litigants to reputational harm and biased narratives.

It seeks comprehensive guidelines to regulate the recording, clipping, redistribution, and monetization of judicial recordings, ensuring that open justice is preserved without allowing for the distortion of court proceedings.

This landmark decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining its sanctity in the digital age, addressing concerns about misinformation, commercial exploitation, and the potential for artificial intelligence to compromise the authenticity of courtroom interactions.