The Supreme Court on Friday flagged the commercial exploitation of its live-streamed hearings, saying the practice is causing serious damage to the judiciary, and asked the Centre to collect suggestions from High Courts and other stakeholders on safeguards to stop the misuse of courtroom videos.
Bench examining plea on monetised courtroom clips
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea titled Harshita Grover v. Union of India, which seeks restraint on the unauthorised extraction and monetisation of videos of court proceedings.
Chief Justice Kant observed that the damage caused to the Bar, the Bench and the institution itself was difficult to quantify. He clarified that the court's intent was neither to restrict live-streaming nor to impose a gag order: court recordings exist to inform the public, not to serve commercial interests.
Solicitor General to collate proposals
The bench directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to gather proposals from the High Courts and other stakeholders on how to tackle the issue, and to file a counter-affidavit incorporating a proposal prepared after considering the suggestions received so far.
Justice Bagchi drew attention to the use of courtroom clips for professional promotion, noting that such practices cut against the principles governing the legal profession. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan proposed that any reproduction of hearings should carry the entire proceedings, without added titles or descriptions.
Background: the July orders
The court had earlier, on July 31, prohibited the extraction, editing, uploading, reposting or monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and digital platforms without the permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the jurisdictional High Court. It clarified that the restriction would not affect news reporting: recognised outlets may continue to report proceedings, but may not utilise audio or video clips of the hearings in their reportage. The Centre had been asked to examine whether the prayers made in the plea can be implemented, and notice was issued to all states.
Sources: Bar and Bench | The Hindu
Bench examining plea on monetised courtroom clips
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea titled Harshita Grover v. Union of India, which seeks restraint on the unauthorised extraction and monetisation of videos of court proceedings.
Chief Justice Kant observed that the damage caused to the Bar, the Bench and the institution itself was difficult to quantify. He clarified that the court's intent was neither to restrict live-streaming nor to impose a gag order: court recordings exist to inform the public, not to serve commercial interests.
Solicitor General to collate proposals
The bench directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to gather proposals from the High Courts and other stakeholders on how to tackle the issue, and to file a counter-affidavit incorporating a proposal prepared after considering the suggestions received so far.
Justice Bagchi drew attention to the use of courtroom clips for professional promotion, noting that such practices cut against the principles governing the legal profession. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan proposed that any reproduction of hearings should carry the entire proceedings, without added titles or descriptions.
Background: the July orders
The court had earlier, on July 31, prohibited the extraction, editing, uploading, reposting or monetisation of audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and digital platforms without the permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the jurisdictional High Court. It clarified that the restriction would not affect news reporting: recognised outlets may continue to report proceedings, but may not utilise audio or video clips of the hearings in their reportage. The Centre had been asked to examine whether the prayers made in the plea can be implemented, and notice was issued to all states.
Sources: Bar and Bench | The Hindu
