https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-supreme-court-bans-uploading-sharing-of-audio-video-recordings-of-court-hearings-without-prior-permission-542719 [24/07, 14:06] sekarreporter1: The Supreme Court on Friday passed an interim order prohibiting 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.

[24/07, 14:06] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-supreme-court-bans-uploading-sharing-of-audio-video-recordings-of-court-hearings-without-prior-permission-542719
[24/07, 14:06] sekarreporter1: The Supreme Court on Friday passed an interim order prohibiting 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.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed an interim order to the effect that “there shall be no extraction, modification, dissemination, posting, re-posting, uploading or monetisation of audio/video recordings of the judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without the prior permission of the Registrar General of the concerned High Courts or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.”

The Court clarified that the interim direction would not affect news reporting of court proceedings.

The order was passed while hearing a public interest litigation filed by journalist Harshita Grover seeking guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing, dissemination and monetisation of audiovisual recordings of court proceedings on digital platforms. The petition contends that selective and decontextualised circulation of courtroom exchanges is undermining the dignity of courts and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system.

The Bench issued notice on the petition and impleaded all High Courts. It directed the Union Government to place before the Court a proposal identifying the nodal ministries that could implement the reliefs sought in the petition. The Court also asked the High Courts to submit reports on the adoption of the Supreme Court’s livestreaming guidelines and explain the impact of continuous livestreaming of proceedings.

Notice was also issued to social media intermediaries, including Meta and X.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that he had no objection to livestreaming of court proceedings but expressed concern over the misuse of edited clips circulating on social media.

“I personally don’t see any problem with livestream,” Singh submitted, while pointing to instances where selective clips of hearings had gone viral. Singh said that a clip from the recent ruckus created before the bench of Justice Viswanathan has become hugely viral, making the judiciary a joke before the lay people.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that regulating digital data had become one of the biggest challenges. He also called for rethinking on livestreaming, saying that it should be an “exception than a norm”

“Regulating data is one of the biggest challenges in digital space… so we should ensure limited access and therefore restrict livestream itself. Parties must expressly make a prayer that they want to see. It can’t be a 24/7 entertainment channel by court,” Justice Bagchi observed. He also noted that online access links granted for virtual hearings are often shared indiscriminately and said such access also required regulation.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the petitioner’s request for interim protection. Flagging the dangers posed by artificial intelligence, he warned that edited courtroom videos could be manipulated to alter the words spoken by judges and lawyers while retaining authentic lip movements.

“Suppose your lordships are saying something to me and I am responding. There are AI tools. With the same lip movement, my and your lordships’ words can be changed in our respective voices,” Mehta submitted.

The SG also said that the clips from the livestream are selectively extracted, and a particular narrative is given, distorting the proceedings.

The CJI agreed that misinformation arising from distorted reporting was a growing concern. The CJI said that even in print media, some of his comments were distorted, and reiterated the observation made earlier today regarding the media reports on the plea concerning student protests.

“In the print forum, I have already experienced. What I never said was thrust upon me by these people,” CJI Kant remarked.

Details of the petition

The petitioner argues that while livestreaming was introduced to advance transparency and the principle of open justice, the absence of safeguards has enabled courtroom recordings to be clipped, edited and circulated with misleading captions and sensational commentary, often for commercial gain.

The plea relies on several instances of alleged misuse of judicial recordings, including edited clips involving judges and advocates, and contends that unrestricted circulation of such material exposes judges, lawyers and litigants to trolling, reputational harm and distorted public narratives. It seeks the formulation of guidelines governing the recording, clipping, redistribution and monetisation of court proceedings while preserving open justice and fair reporting.

The petitioner is seeking the formulation of guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing, dissemination and monetisation of audiovisual recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and digital platforms, alleging that selective and decontextualised circulation of courtroom exchanges is undermining the dignity of courts and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system.

The petition, filed by journalist Harshita Grover under Article 32 of the Constitution, contends that while live-streaming and video conferencing of court proceedings were introduced to advance the principles of open justice and transparency, the absence of a regulatory framework has enabled widespread misuse of such recordings for sensationalism, misinformation and commercial gain.

The petitioner submits that isolated courtroom exchanges, oral observations and preliminary remarks are routinely extracted from lengthy hearings, circulated without factual or legal context, and accompanied by misleading captions, clickbait headlines and sensational commentary to maximise online engagement and advertising revenue. According to the petition, this exposes judges, advocates and litigants to trolling, vilification and reputational harm while creating distorted public narratives about judicial proceedings.

The plea clarifies that it does not seek to curtail the principle of open justice or fair reporting of court proceedings. Instead, it seeks “reasonable safeguards” against the unauthorised clipping, editing, dissemination and commercial exploitation of judicial recordings so that transparency is preserved without permitting distortion of court proceedings.

The petition refers to several instances to illustrate what it describes as a recurring problem. It cites the controversy surrounding remarks made by a Karnataka High Court judge in 2024, which were later clarified as having been reported out of context. It also refers to the Bar Council of India’s March 2025 press release on unethical legal advertising and misleading social media promotions, as well as a July 2025 letter by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCORA) seeking guidelines on videography and social media content creation within Supreme Court premises.

The petitioner further points to instances where courtroom exchanges involving advocates were uploaded on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube with sensational captions, allegedly causing reputational damage to lawyers. It also relies on a Delhi High Court order directing the removal of an edited and selectively cropped court video, contending that such incidents demonstrate the misuse of judicial recordings to create misleading narratives about courts.

The plea also refers to the controversy surrounding oral observations made by the Chief Justice of India during proceedings on May 15, 2026, which were subsequently clarified by the CJI as having been misconstrued and taken out of context. According to the petition, the subsequent circulation of edited clips and social media campaigns demonstrated how fragmented extracts from court proceedings can be weaponised to ridicule constitutional institutions and portray the judiciary as biased.

Highlighting what it describes as the commercial exploitation of judicial material, the petition alleges that numerous YouTube channels and social media platforms generate advertising revenue, paid memberships and subscriptions by uploading edited courtroom clips designed to maximise views through controversy and sensationalism. It argues that judicial proceedings were made accessible to advance transparency and public understanding of the legal process, not to become revenue-generating digital content.

The petition also draws attention to the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s copyright terms and conditions governing audiovisual recordings, submitting that similar safeguards should be introduced in India to prevent distortion and commercial misuse while preserving open justice.

Among its grounds, the petition contends that selective circulation of courtroom clips creates a real risk of prejudice to the administration of justice because oral observations during hearings are often tentative and intended only to test submissions. It argues that unrestricted clipping and monetisation encourage sensationalism, distort public understanding of judicial proceedings, expose judges and advocates to unwarranted criticism and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

The petitioner has sought directions from the Supreme Court to frame appropriate safeguards governing the recording, clipping, redistribution and monetisation of audiovisual recordings of judicial proceedings while preserving the principles of open justice and fair reporting.

For the petitioner: Dr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Md Imran Ahmad, Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Mr. Daksh Sachdeva, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Ms. Khushi, Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad and Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Advocates, instructed by Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate-on-Record.

Case : Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026
[24/07, 14:06] Meta AI: *Case #200: _Supreme Court Suo Motu_ | SC Bans Recording of Court Hearings*
*Court: Supreme Court of India*
*Date: Breaking – 2026*
*Subject: Contempt of Court + Right to Privacy + Court Proceedings + Digital Media*

*1. Holding*
*Held*: *BANS uploading/sharing of audio/video recordings of court hearings WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION*
*Reason*: _To protect dignity of court proceedings, privacy of litigants/witnesses, and prevent misuse/misrepresentation_

*2. Key Points*
**Point** **Details**
**Ban** *No person can record, upload, share audio/video of court hearings without prior permission of Court*
**Applies to** *Physical courts + Virtual/Online hearings on YouTube, LiveLaw, etc*
**Purpose** *1. Prevent clipping out of context*
*2. Protect witness/victim privacy, esp in POCSO, sexual offence cases*
*3. Maintain decorum + prevent trial by media*
**Penalty** *Contempt of Court action can be initiated for violation*
*3. Why SC did this*
1. *Misuse*: _Clips taken out of context and circulated on social media to malign judges/lawyers/parties_
2. *Privacy*: _Victims, women, children, witnesses get exposed during live hearings_
3. *Dignity*: _Court proceedings being turned into “entertainment content”_
4. *Fair Trial*: _Witnesses get influenced, evidence gets prejudiced_

*4. What is ALLOWED*
1. *Official Transcript*: _Judgments, orders, cause list already public_
2. *With Permission*: _Media, researchers can seek court permission to record for bona fide purpose_
3. *Reporting*: _Text reporting of proceedings is still allowed as per law_

*5. HJS / Exam Note*
*Write*:
1. _SC 2026 – Suo Motu – Ban on Recording Court Hearings_
2. _Issue: Misuse of audio/video recordings of court proceedings on social media_
3. _Held: Prior permission mandatory to record/upload/share. Violation = Contempt_
4. _Principles: Art 19(1)(a) Right to Information vs Art 21 Privacy + Contempt of Courts Act + Dignity of Judiciary_
5. _Exception: Official records + Permission from Court_

*One-liner*: _“No recording/sharing of court hearings without permission. Protects privacy + dignity + fair trial”_

*6. Significance*
1. *For Media*: _LiveLaw, Bar & Bench, YouTube channels must take permission before posting clips_
2. *For Public*: _Cannot screen-record virtual hearings and post reels/shorts_
3. *For Lawyers*: _Clients cannot record proceedings on phone during hearing_
4. *For Victims*: _POCSO, rape, matrimonial cases get more protection_

—
*Case #200 Final*: _SC 2026 – Bans Uploading/Sharing Audio-Video of Court Hearings Without Prior Permission – Contempt Warning – Privacy + Dignity Grounds_

*Master Docket*: _200 Cases_
*Tag*: _#200 Supreme Court + Recording Ban + Contempt + Privacy + Virtual Hearing + LiveLaw_

*Source*: _https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-supreme-court-bans-uploading-sharing-of-audio-video-recordings-of-court-hearings-without-prior-permission-542719_

*Next*: *1. “Contempt of Courts Act – Sec 2(c) Scandalizing Court”* OR *2. “Right to Information vs Right to Privacy”* OR *3. “Virtual Court Guidelines”*

Want me to make a *1-page note on exceptions + how to apply for permission* sir?
[24/07, 14:07] Meta AI: *Case #200: _Harshita Grover v. Union of India_ | W.P.(C) No. 751/2026*
*Court: Supreme Court of India*
*Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice V Mohana*
*Date: Friday, 2026*
*Subject: Contempt + Right to Privacy + Open Justice + Digital Media + AI Misuse*

*1. INTERIM ORDER*
*Held*: *NO extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading OR monetisation of audio/video recordings of judicial proceedings without PRIOR PERMISSION*
*Authority for Permission*: _Registrar General of concerned HC / Secretary General of SC_
*Exception*: _News reporting of court proceedings NOT affected_

*2. Key Facts & Arguments*
**Point** **Details**
**Petitioner** *Journalist Harshita Grover – PIL u/Art 32*
**Grievance** *Selective, decontextualised clips of court hearings circulated for sensationalism + commercial gain*
**Examples Cited** *1. Karnataka HC Judge 2024 remarks taken out of context*
*2. Justice Viswanathan bench “ruckus” clip viral*
*3. CJI May 15 2026 observations misquoted*
*4. Lawyers’ exchanges uploaded with clickbait on YT, FB, Insta*
**Petitioner Counsel** *Sr. Adv Vikas Singh: “No problem with livestream, but misuse of edited clips”*
**SG Tushar Mehta** *Flagged AI danger: “Lip movement same, but words + voices can be changed by AI tools”*
*3. Major Observations by SC*
1. *CJI Surya Kant*: _“Misinformation from distorted reporting is growing. Even in print, what I never said was thrust upon me”_
2. *Justice Bagchi*: _“Regulating data is biggest challenge. Livestream should be exception not norm. Can’t be 24/7 entertainment channel. Online access links being shared indiscriminately”_
3. *SG*: _AI can manipulate videos with authentic lip-sync, creating false judicial statements_

*4. Directions*
1. *Interim Ban*: _No clipping/editing/posting/monetising without permission from RG HC / Secy Gen SC_
2. *Notices Issued To*: _Union Govt, All High Courts, Meta, X and other social media intermediaries_
3. *Govt Directed*: _Identify nodal ministries to implement safeguards_
4. *HCs Directed*: _Submit reports on adoption of SC livestreaming guidelines + impact of continuous livestreaming_

*5. Legal Principles Involved*
1. *Art 19(1)(a)*: _Right to Information + Open Justice_
2. *Art 21*: _Right to Privacy, Dignity, Fair Trial of litigants/witnesses_
3. *Contempt of Courts Act, 1971*: _Scandalizing court, interfering with administration of justice_
4. *Balance*: _Transparency vs Dignity. “Open justice ≠ Entertainment content”_

*6. HJS / Exam Note*
*Write*:
1. _SC 2026 – Harshita Grover v. UOI – W.P.751/2026 – CJI Surya Kant Bench_
2. _Issue: Misuse of courtroom video/audio clips on social media via editing + AI + monetisation_
3. _Interim Order: Prior permission from RG HC/Secy Gen SC mandatory. News reporting allowed_
4. _Reason: Protect dignity, prevent misinformation, avoid prejudice to fair trial, stop AI manipulation_
5. _Principle: Livestreaming for transparency, but needs regulation. Can’t be 24/7 entertainment_

*One-liner*: _“Open justice with safeguards. No clipping/monetising court videos without court permission”_

*7. Significance*
1. *For Media/YouTube Channels*: _Bar & Bench, LiveLaw, legal influencers must seek permission before posting clips_
2. *For AI Threat*: _First SC recognition that AI deepfakes can alter judicial proceedings_
3. *For Livestreaming*: _May become “exception not norm”. Access links to be regulated_
4. *For Judiciary*: _Protects judges/lawyers/litigants from trolling, vilification, reputational harm_
5. *For Public*: _Prevents distorted narrative about “tentative oral observations” being taken as final decision_

—
*Case #200 Final*: _SC 2026 – Harshita Grover PIL – Interim Ban on Recording/Clipping/Monetising Court Proceedings – Permission from RG HC/Secy Gen SC – AI Misuse Noted_

*Master Docket*: _200 Cases_
*Tag*: _#200 Supreme Court + Livestream + Contempt + AI Deepfake + Open Justice + Privacy + Harshita Grover_

*Source*: _Harshita Grover v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 751/2026_

*Next*: *1. “UK Supreme Court Copyright Terms for Recordings”* OR *2. “Guidelines for Permission Application”* OR *3. “Contempt vs Freedom of Press”*

Want me to draft a *sample application format to seek permission from RG HC* for recording sir?