Why Has the Supreme Court Banned Uploads of Court Hearing Videos on Social Media?

The Supreme Court has prohibited the posting, uploading, sharing or monetisation of audio and video recordings of court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the concerned court. The interim order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan while hearing a public interest litigation seeking regulation of livestreams and circulation of courtroom videos.

The court clarified that the direction does not restrict news reporting of judicial proceedings and should not be interpreted as a gag order on the media.

Supreme Court Restricts Circulation of Courtroom Recordings

In its interim order, the Bench directed that no audio or video recording of judicial proceedings may be extracted, modified, disseminated, posted, reposted, uploaded or monetised on social media or digital platforms without prior approval from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. 'Don't Waste Our Time': CJI Surya Kant Rejects Videos in Plea Over Police Action on CJP Protest.

"There shall be no extraction, modification, dissemination, posting, re-posting, uploading or monetisation of audio/video recordings of the judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without the prior permission of the Registrar General of the concerned High Courts or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court," the order stated.

Court Says Order Does Not Affect News Reporting

The Bench emphasised that the interim direction is limited to unauthorised circulation of courtroom recordings and does not prevent the media from reporting court proceedings.

Justice V Mohan also clarified that the order is not a restriction on freedom of speech. 'Millions Will Come to Delhi if Govt Doesn't Agree': CJP Ashutosh Ranka Spokesperson Issues Ultimatum.

'We Cannot Stop a Demon Which Is Out of the Bag'

The petition, filed by a journalist, argued that selective and decontextualised circulation of courtroom exchanges on social media undermines the dignity of courts and weakens public confidence in the justice delivery system.

Justice Bagchi said, "What we are stopping is video recording and uploading of video recordings. We have also said that if any livestreaming or audio-visual is to be shown, it should be with permission of the Secretary General and Registrar General of the High Court."

Responding to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that platforms such as Facebook and Instagram are flooded with courtroom clips, Justice Bagchi remarked, "We cannot stop a demon which is out of the bag."

He further observed, "We should ensure limited access and therefore restrict livestream itself. Parties must expressly make a prayer that 'I want to see'. It cannot be a 24x7 entertainment channel."

Notice Issued to Meta, X and Other Platforms

The Supreme Court also issued notices to Meta, X and other social media intermediaries regarding the circulation of courtroom videos.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh supported livestreaming in principle but referred to a recent incident in which a litigant threw papers at the Bench and abused the Chief Justice, with the video later going viral.

"It has become a joke," he said.

Backing the concern, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned that artificial intelligence tools could be used to manipulate courtroom content.

"With AI tools, judges' or lawyers' words can be changed and uploaded on social media," he said.

CJI Flags Misreporting of Court Proceedings

Chief Justice Surya Kant also expressed concern over inaccurate media reports, stating that his remarks had previously been misrepresented.

"In the print forum, I have already experienced it. What I never said was thrust upon me by these people," the CJI remarked.

He also dismissed as "reckless" reports claiming that he had refused an urgent hearing on a plea related to the July 20 police action against students, clarifying that no writ petition had been filed.

"Till 10 am in the morning, not a single page has been filed. It was one representation... sent by Mishra or someone. How can I treat the representation as a writ petition? And people start recklessly reporting this," the CJI said.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jul 24, 2026 03:21 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).