Apex Court or HC Nod Must To Share Content
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday barred the uploading, sharing and circulation of video clips from live-streamed court proceedings on social media and digital platforms, after finding that edited clips with biased commentary were flooding social media. Apex court said any online use of audiovisual excerpts from hearings must have the approval of SC or HC.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the interim order after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for journalist PIL petitioner Harshita Grover, said some of these clips circulating on social media are edited with a devious mind and that a mischievous narrative is superimposed to project a negative image of the judiciary.Backing the PIL and a regulatory mechanism, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said use of AI has led to a manifold rise in spread of motivated narratives on social media, and could become a tool to malign judiciary’s image.SC sought responses from govt, HCs and social media platforms – YouTube, X, WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram – in two weeks.”As an interim measure, no excerpts from live-streamed judicial proceedings will be posted, transmitted, stored, hosted or circulated on any social media or digital platforms without prior permission of SC secretary general or registrars general of jurisdictional HCs,” the bench said. Lawyers misusing court clips to lure clients, SC toldSenior advocate Vikas Singh, who is also president of Supreme Court Bar Association, flagged advocates posting clips of court proceedings involving them on social media apparently to boost popularity and attract clients.SC has sought a response from Bar Council of India as Advocates Act bars lawyers from advertising or soliciting clients directly or indirectly.Apart from social media activity, many law firms now have engaged PR professionals who approach journalists to incorporate quotes from them in news articles.The misuse of court clips on social media was such that the CJI-led bench considered suspending the live streaming of judicial hearings, which began during the Covid lockdown.”If the digital data generated from the court hearings after going public becomes difficult to regulate, we will consider restricting live-streaming of court proceedings, as we do not want it to become a 24×7 entertainment channel. It is trivialising the judiciary,” the bench said.When the bench said availability of links to live proceedings could be restricted only to advocates and litigants on demand, Singh said live streaming should not be stopped as it gives transparency to judicial proceedings.The petitioner said fair reporting of judicial proceedings was protected under the right to free speech under Article 19, and the protection did not extend to mischievous and denigrating contents that interfere with the administration of justice, spread misinformation or subject judicial institutions to organised vilification campaigns.”Misleading thumbnails, clickbait headlines, provocative commentary, and edited courtroom clips encourage sensationalism rather than accurate reporting. These practices distort public understanding of judicial proceedings and erode confidence in the justice delivery system,” Harshita Grover said.
