SC Prohibits Unauthorised Recording, Monetisation of Court Videos on Social Media

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• The SC has prohibited the extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading or monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the concerned court.

About

• The court clarified that the interim order would not affect fair news reporting of judicial proceedings.
• The High Courts have also been asked to submit reports on the adoption of the Supreme Court’s model livestreaming guidelines and explain the impact of continuous livestreaming of proceedings.

Live Streaming of Court Proceedings

• The SC began livestreaming proceedings before its Constitution Benches in 2022.
• Aim: To make judicial proceedings more transparent and accessible to the public. 
• It followed the court’s September 2018 ruling in Swapnil Tripathi v. Union of India, which had declared live telecast of court proceedings part of the right to access justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • It stated that livestreaming would “virtually” expand the court beyond the four walls of the courtroom.
• Subsequently, the Supreme Court’s e-Committee, headed by then CJI Chandrachud, came out with model guidelines to regulate livestreaming of court proceedings in India.
• In 2023, the Supreme Court became the first court in India to introduce AI-assisted live transcription of its proceedings.
  • Announcing the initiative, then CJI Chandrachud said the technology would create a reliable archival record of court proceedings while serving as a valuable resource for the judiciary.

Concerns

• Livestreaming was introduced to promote transparency and the principle of open justice, the absence of a regulatory framework has enabled courtroom recordings to be clipped, edited and circulated with misleading captions.
  • Selectively edited clips were often used to create misleading narratives about court proceedings.
• The misuse of recordings of judicial proceedings has a “chilling effect” on the functioning of both judges and lawyers by exposing them to “character assassination” and “public trolling”.
• Such circulation creates a climate of hostility, misinformation, and deliberate sensationalism around judicial proceedings, thereby undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

Way Ahead

• Frame a Comprehensive Regulatory Framework: Establish clear legal and procedural guidelines governing the recording, reproduction, dissemination and commercial use of livestreamed court proceedings while balancing transparency with the integrity of the judicial process.
• Strengthen Technological Safeguards: Deploy digital watermarking, content authentication tools and AI-based monitoring systems to detect unauthorised editing, deepfakes and misuse of judicial recordings across digital platforms.
• Ensure Uniform Implementation of Livestreaming Guidelines: High Courts should adopt and periodically review the Supreme Court’s model livestreaming guidelines.
• Enhance Public Legal Awareness: Conduct awareness campaigns highlighting the legal consequences of unauthorised circulation or manipulation of court proceedings and promote informed public engagement with the justice delivery system.

Source: TH