Audio-Video Clips Of Court Proceedings Cannot Be Used For Reporting: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court by way of an order has 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."

Last week, Court had said that it will clarify on reporting of Court proceedings by recognized news outlets and the usage of audio-video recording(s) of the judicial proceedings.

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.

As a CJI Surya Kant led bench recently took up a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the alleged misuse of live-streamed court proceedings through the circulation of edited and clipped videos on social media, Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the bench that its previous order needed some modifications. "We have filed an IA..there needs to be official live streaming by the courts, and that has to be preserved in an archive, so that anybody who wants to use a clip, etc., must only use the archive, " Bhushan told the bench.

CJI Kant had then observed, "What is required is only to prevent misuse." CJI added, "All Applications are allowed.. we will clarify para 11 of our earlier order...". In the said order, in Para 11 the bench had stated, "However, it is clarified that this order shall have no bearing on the reporting of Court proceedings by recognized news outlets."

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

Order Date: July 31, 2026