Key Highlights
- Supreme Court mandates that all courtroom video be shared only after consent.
- Directive applies across all digital platforms and live‑streaming services.
- AI‑generated or heavily edited clips risk eroding public trust in the judiciary.
Detailed Insights
In a landmark verdict, the bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana imposed a provisional ban on the online transmission of court proceedings. The prohibition extends to posting, sharing or broadcasting such footage without prior approval from the Secretary‑General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar‑General of the relevant High Court, pending a full hearing.
The judiciary flagged that sensationalised or AI‑overlaid clips can distort the record and undermine confidence in the legal system. The public‑interest lawsuit filed by journalist Harshita Grover forced parliament‑style scrutiny, underscoring that unverified reporting tarnishes the sanctity of the courtroom and obstructs justice.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh warned of the commercial misuse of court footage by certain lawyers. The Supreme Court instructed the Bar Council of India to clarify its position on such advertising. Courts cautioned that if abuses persist, live‑streaming might be reevaluated, potentially limiting access to lawyers, litigants and selected stakeholders.
Key Concepts
- Provisional Moratorium – a temporary suspension pending formal review.
- Artificial‑Intelligence‑Generated Content – media altered or created by algorithms that can imitate or modify recordings.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – a lawsuit seeking to protect collective rights and public welfare.
- Legal Advertising Regulations – guidelines that prohibit lawyers from using courtroom material for marketing.
