"You Use Abusive Words, Why Are You Shy," Supreme Court Tells Lawyer Alleging Professional Harm Over Viral Courtroom Video
Supreme Court was told today that intermediaries may take an excuse that there is no express direction against them by the court on circulation of court proceedings.
Supreme Court refuses plea seeking action against news portals for circulating recording of a counsel's courtroom appearance.
The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a plea moved by a lawyer whose courtroom video wherein he spoke to the court in an abusive language went viral and have been circulating on social media since.
A CJI Surya Kant led bench was told today that the circulation of videos by news outlets was in direct contravention of the apex court's July 24 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.
"Commercial exploitation may violate our order. But adding words never spoken or falsely attributing remarks to the Bench would be a criminal act.. You are not alleging that the video was fabricated or altered using AI. You are appearing in open court... should be brave enough," CJI Kant told the lawyer before him.
"My profession will be hampered..These are people creating news. They are antisocial elements." the counsel said in response.
"If you use abusive words and make such fierce allegations, why are you shy.. You are not saying that they fabricated your video. You are not saying that they used AI..," the CJI told the petitioner.
When the court was informed that the counsel was merely appearing in court in connection with the bail of his father, CJI Kant said, "Suppose the live-streaming is going on and you are arguing before us and a channel commercially exploits that exchange, it may be committing contempt... But if they add words which we never spoke or attribute something to the Bench which was never said, that is far more serious. They would then be indulging in a criminal act. It may amount to criminal contempt and would require very serious action."
The Supreme Court also refused to consider the petitioner's submission that news portals and intermediaries may take the excuse that there is no express direction against them as the prohibition only concerns proceedings circulated after July 24.
The order issued on July 24 by the Supreme Court had 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 passed the said direction is a PIL which 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.
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: Bhanu Pratap Singh vs. Union of India
Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana
Hearing Date: 16 September, 2026