Have you ever seen dramatic clips of Indian courtrooms popping up on your social media feed? Short videos of judges questioning lawyers often go viral on Instagram reels and YouTube shorts. While open justice lets citizens watch proceedings, the Supreme Court has now stepped in to curb the unauthorized recording, twisting, and profiting from these livestreams.
Supreme Court Directs IT Ministry to Spell Out Penalties
The Supreme Court of India has made it clear that unauthorized use of court footage must face concrete legal consequences. A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana issued directions in the case of Harshita Grover v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bench was hearing a plea that sought strict curbs on the unauthorized extraction and commercial monetization of courtroom video feeds. During the hearing, the court noted that the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is working on a comprehensive policy to handle this issue.
The Bench directed the government to ensure that this upcoming policy does not merely issue guidelines. It must clearly specify enforcement measures and action against anyone who breaches court directions.
The Problem of Re-Recording and Monetization
Earlier, the top court passed an interim order prohibiting the sharing or use of live-streamed court hearings on digital platforms without prior approval. While accredited media organizations can report on what happens in court, they must also follow restrictions concerning the actual audio and video footage.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that despite earlier directions, violations continue to happen online. He stated that discussions had taken place with the IT Secretary, and suggestions from various High Courts, advocates, and stakeholders have been submitted to the court Registry.
Addressing the issue of individuals recording their screens or using secondary mobile phones to capture proceedings, the Bench noted that such deliberate acts amount to contempt of court. Contempt of court refers to actions that disobey court orders or undermine the administration of justice.
Debate Over Watermarks and Open Justice
During the proceedings, advocate Prashant Bhushan presented technical solutions to prevent the spread of misleading courtroom clips. He suggested that official video streams should use verifiable digital watermarking and cryptographic signatures. This would allow viewers and platforms to separate official court footage from altered or fake clips.
Bhushan argued that official proceedings should be accessible on the court website. He urged that legal commentators and journalists should not need prior permission from the Registry to share authenticated clips. Requiring case-by-case clearance, he argued, might go against the principle of open justice established in the landmark Swapnil Tripathi ruling, which originally paved the way for live-streaming courtroom proceedings.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that technical safeguards are already being developed on the administrative side. Several High Courts have already configured their official YouTube feeds to block direct third-party recording or extraction.
Zero Tolerance for Commercial Exploitation
The Bench stood firm on the restriction against making money off court footage. The court highlighted that even genuine, authenticated courtroom clips cannot be used for commercial profit or monetization without express sanction.
The judges noted that judicial supervision remains essential to evaluate how much material is extracted and for what purpose. While open justice allows citizens to observe the legal process, it does not give content creators a free pass to profit off courtroom interactions or take arguments out of context.
What Happens Next
MeitY is actively preparing a formal policy regime in consultation with stakeholders. Once finalized, the framework is expected to outline explicit penalties and enforcement mechanisms for platforms and individuals who extract, edit, or monetize courtroom video streams without approval.
The Supreme Court clarified that it will address broader questions surrounding permissions for commentary and journalistic reporting as the proceedings advance.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
