"No Question of Gagging, But Misuse Concerns Us": Supreme Court On Commercial Exploitation Of Court Proceedings

The Supreme Court today heard a PIL seeking regulation of the unauthorised extraction and circulation of audio and video recordings of court proceedings on social media and digital platforms. It alleged that clips from live-streamed hearings were being edited, taken out of context and widely disseminated online, leading to distortion of judicial proceedings.

A CJI Surya Kant led bench has asked the Union of India to formulate guidelines and place the same before court for consideration in three weeks time.

While hearing the matter, the CJI expressed concerns over commercial exploitation of courtroom proceedings saying "There is no question of gagging..but this kind of misuse is what we are concerned about..".

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed with the court's view and said monetisation, advertisement and misrepresentation were the key issues.

SG Mehta further told the bench that  video recordings of court proceedings are being uploaded on Youtube channels. "Those YouTube channels that are still uploading, should stop doing so..", he added.

"Today the lawyers are uploading these videos for personal gain..the first rule for lawyers is no canvassing..when we are live streaming..there is no regulation of plucking out parts and canvassing by lawyers..," Justice Bagchi observed while added to the concerns.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the bench issues arise "when there is a 30 min hearing..the video is uploaded for 1 min..with titles like 'lawyer slams...court slams lawyer' that is completely out of context...".

In August, the Supreme Court by way of an order had clarified that news outlets continue to report on the proceedings of court and inform the general public of legal developments and judicial pronouncements, but audio or video clips of the court proceedings shall not be utilised in the course of such reportage.

While clarifying a part of its order from July 24, 2026, the Chief Justice of India has said, "It appears, however, that some confusion persists in respect of paragraph 11 of the earlier order, which this Court deems necessary to clarify. The said paragraph makes it clear that the order is not to be construed as imposing a blanket prohibition on the reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets. Such outlets may, therefore, continue to report on the proceedings and inform the general public of legal developments and judicial pronouncements, save that audio or video clips of the court proceedings shall not be utilised in the course of such reportage. In sum, while news outlets may continue to report on the court proceedings, they shall nonetheless remain bound by the restrictions set out in paragraph 10."

On July 24, 2026 the Supreme Court had passed an interim order prohibiting the posting, reposting, uploading, transmission or storage of audio and video recordings of court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the Supreme Court or the concerned high court. Court, however, had added that the order will not affect fair and accurate news reporting of judicial proceedings.

The order issued on July 24, also said, "As an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be no extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting of the audio-video recording(s) of the judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India or the Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional High Courts. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India and the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts shall arrange to upload this order on their respective websites for public information."

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana had also issued notice on the petition and sought responses from the Centre and other respondents.

What is the petition about?

The PIL sought regulation of the unauthorised extraction and circulation of audio and video recordings of court proceedings on social media and digital platforms. It alleged that clips from live-streamed hearings were being edited, taken out of context and widely disseminated online, leading to distortion of judicial proceedings.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that videos of court proceedings were being misused on social media and other digital platforms. He urged the Court to regulate the dissemination of such recordings. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the need for regulation, submitting that there had to be safeguards governing the circulation of such recordings.

Interim directions

Under the interim order, audio and video recordings of court proceedings cannot be posted, reposted, uploaded or shared on social media and digital platforms without obtaining prior permission from the Supreme Court or the concerned high court.

The restriction will remain in force until further orders. At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that the interim order does not prohibit fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings. Journalistic reporting of hearings can continue, with the restriction confined to the unauthorised dissemination of audio and video recordings.

The Union of India has also been directed to put up a proposal with respect to the Nodal Ministries to give effect to the prayers made in the Writ Petition. The High Courts have also been asked submit their status reports with respect to the adoption of the Model Rules for live streaming and recording of court proceedings circulated by this Court. Their status reports are also to explain the impact continuous/uninterrupted live streaming.

Case Title: Harshita Grover v. Union of India and others

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana 

Hearing Date: October 9, 2026