Supreme Court Calls For Strict Action Against Unauthorised Sharing Of Court Hearing Videos

The Supreme Court on Friday, October 30, said the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITy) must include provisions to take action against those who circulate videos of court proceedings without permission. The court said the proposed policy should also address violations of its earlier directions restricting the unauthorised use of such recordings.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Harshita Grover seeking measures to prevent the unauthorised extraction, sharing and monetisation of videos of court hearings, Bar & Bench reports.

Visit xsportfeed.life for more information.

Centre Working On Policy To Curb Misuse

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the government was considering a policy to address the unauthorised circulation of courtroom videos. He said suggestions had been received from various High Courts, lawyers and other stakeholders and placed before the Supreme Court Registry.

Supreme Court Dismisses NIA Plea Against Bail To Kashmiri Activist Khurram Parvez In Terror Conspiracy Case

Mehta also acknowledged that the court’s earlier directions had been violated. “There have been breaches (of the court’s directives against unauthorised circulation of courtroom videos). I don’t want to escalate, but there have been breaches. I had a word with the Secretary... It is under consideration by the Ministry, for formulation of a policy,” he said.

Court Wants Clear Consequences For Violations

The Supreme Court said the proposed policy must also include measures to deal with those who violate its earlier interim orders.

“Necessary measures for taking action against those who fail to comply with the directions will also be incorporated in the policy regime,” the Bench said.

The court had previously passed an interim order prohibiting the unauthorised use and circulation of videos of live-streamed court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission.

It later clarified that recognised news organisations could continue reporting on court proceedings. However, the restriction on sharing audio and video recordings of hearings would also apply to news outlets.

Watermarking Court Videos Suggested

During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan suggested introducing digital watermarks and cryptographic signatures to help people identify authentic courtroom footage and distinguish it from manipulated videos.

He proposed that official recordings of court proceedings be uploaded to the Supreme Court’s website with digital authentication, allowing the public to verify their authenticity.

“With digital watermarking and cryptographic signing, every official clip released should be embedded with a verifiable digital signature or watermark, enabling the public and platforms to authenticate genuine court footage against manipulated versions,” Bhushan submitted.

He also suggested that the court’s website should serve as the authorised source for such recordings, allowing people to access and extract authenticated footage.

High Courts Already Exploring Safeguards

Justice Bagchi responded that the judiciary was already working on administrative measures to prevent the misuse of courtroom recordings.

“That we are doing separately on the administrative side. We are also contemplating, and in fact some High Courts have put in place arrangements where you cannot make an extraction from the feed on the YouTube channel set up for the court concerned,” he said.

Mehta, however, pointed out that people could still record court proceedings using secondary devices such as mobile phones.

Justice Bagchi said such actions could amount to contempt of court, while acknowledging the difficulties involved in enforcing restrictions.

“It would be contempt of court... The difficulty is the implementation part, for which we are requesting the relevant authority under the rules,” he said.

Even Authentic Videos Cannot Be Monetised

The Bench also made it clear that authenticated recordings of court proceedings could not be used for commercial purposes without approval.

“Even authenticated footage cannot be commercialised. That’s a problem... That’s why in paragraph 9 (of the earlier interim order) we have already imposed the rider of commercial exploitation,” Justice Bagchi said.

The observation highlighted the court’s concern that even genuine recordings could be misused when circulated for financial gain.

Dhruv Rathee Faces Defamation Suit Over Lord Ram, Goddess Sita Video; Saket Court Sets November 5 Hearing

Bhushan Raises Concerns Over Press Freedom

Bhushan questioned the requirement for prior permission when journalists, YouTubers and legal commentators use portions of official courtroom recordings to report on judicial proceedings.

He argued that requiring permission from the Supreme Court Secretary General before using authenticated clips could conflict with the principle of open justice recognised in the Supreme Court’s Swapnil Tripathi ruling on live-streaming court proceedings.

His argument raised an important question about how restrictions on courtroom videos could be enforced without unnecessarily limiting public access to judicial proceedings.

Also Watch:

Court Insists On Supervision Of Video Clips

The Bench, however, maintained that some level of judicial supervision was necessary whenever portions of court proceedings were extracted and circulated on public platforms.

“Court supervision is to the extent of how much you are extracting and for what purpose,” Justice Bagchi said.

Bhushan continued to express concerns over the practical implications of such restrictions.

“Actually, My Lord, that will lead to a problem, and I will explain,” he submitted.

The court said it would consider these concerns at an appropriate stage.

“We will examine the problem when we cross it,” Justice Bagchi said.

The proceedings brought into focus the challenge of balancing public access to court hearings with the need to prevent unauthorised circulation, manipulation and commercial exploitation of courtroom recordings.

Read full story at source