Today, the Supreme Court passed an interim order banning the unauthorised extraction, editing, sharing, reposting, uploading or monetisation of audio and video recordings of court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana said that no one can use or circulate recordings of judicial proceedings without prior permission from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.

However, the Court clarified that this order will not affect fair and accurate news reporting of court proceedings.

The interim order was passed while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Harshita Grover, who has sought guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing, sharing and monetisation of courtroom videos on digital platforms.

According to the petition, edited and selective clips of court hearings are often circulated on social media without context, creating misleading narratives, damaging the dignity of courts and reducing public confidence in the judicial system.

The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition and made all High Courts parties to the case. It also directed the Union government to identify the ministries that would be responsible for implementing the proposed safeguards.

The High Courts have been asked to submit reports on how they have adopted the Supreme Court's livestreaming guidelines and explain the impact of continuous livestreaming of court proceedings. Notices were also issued to social media platforms, including Meta and X.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, said he was not against livestreaming of court proceedings. However, he expressed concern over edited clips going viral on social media, saying they often present a distorted picture of what actually happened in court.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that regulating digital content has become one of the biggest challenges. He suggested that livestreaming should perhaps become an exception rather than the norm, adding that courts should not turn into "24/7 entertainment channels." He also pointed out that links for virtual hearings are frequently shared without restriction and may require better regulation.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the plea for interim protection. He warned that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) make it possible to manipulate courtroom videos by changing the spoken words while keeping the original lip movements intact. He also said that selective editing of hearing clips often creates misleading narratives.

CJI Surya Kant agreed that distorted reporting is a growing concern. He remarked that even his own comments had been misrepresented in the media on certain occasions.

The petition states that while livestreaming was introduced to promote transparency and open justice, the absence of proper safeguards has allowed courtroom recordings to be edited, sensationalised and monetised for online views and advertising revenue.

It also cites several instances where edited clips allegedly harmed the reputation of judges and lawyers and argues that oral observations made during hearings are often taken out of context, leading to misinformation and unnecessary controversy. The petitioner has sought comprehensive guidelines to regulate the recording, editing, sharing and commercial use of judicial proceedings while preserving transparency and fair reporting.