Supreme Court Prohibits Unauthorized Sharing of Livestreamed Court Proceedings on Social Media

The Supreme Court of India on July 24, 2026, issued an interim order prohibiting the unauthorized extraction, editing, posting, re-posting, uploading, and monetization of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and digital platforms. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana passed the order while hearing a petition highlighting the widespread misuse of livestreamed court hearings on social media platforms.

Background: From Swapnil Tripathi to Livestreaming

The livestreaming of Supreme Court proceedings traces its origin to the landmark judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), in which a three-judge bench led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra held that transparency in judicial proceedings is an aspect of the right to know flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court directed the framing of Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, which were subsequently adopted.

Following this framework, livestreaming of Constitution Bench hearings commenced via the Supreme Court's official YouTube channel in September 2022. Several High Courts subsequently adopted their own livestreaming protocols. The initiative was widely welcomed as a step toward greater transparency and open justice. However, the increasing popularity of livestreaming also brought unforeseen challenges, as excerpts from proceedings began to be selectively edited, clipped, and circulated on social media in ways that distorted the context of judicial observations.

The July 24 Interim Order

The bench took note of the growing practice of social media users and content creators extracting portions of livestreamed proceedings, often editing them to create misleading or sensationalized narratives. The Court observed that such selective dissemination undermined public confidence in the judiciary and could prejudice ongoing cases. The bench noted the particular risk posed by artificial intelligence tools that could be used to manipulate or alter court recordings.

The interim order prohibited the following activities without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the concerned High Court: extraction of audio or video clips from livestreamed proceedings, modification or editing of such recordings, posting or re-posting on social media platforms, uploading to any digital platform, and any form of monetization of court recordings. The Court directed that recordings of judicial proceedings should be accessed only through official court archives and recognized channels.

Exemption for Recognized News Outlets

The Supreme Court clarified that the interim order would not affect fair news reporting of judicial proceedings. Recognized news outlets were specifically exempted from the prohibition, ensuring that the media's ability to report on court proceedings remains unimpeded. This exemption recognizes the fundamental role of the press in a democratic society and the distinction between responsible journalism and the unregulated circulation of decontextualized clips on social media.

The distinction drawn by the Court is important. News organizations are subject to professional standards, editorial oversight, and legal accountability. Social media users and content creators, by contrast, operate without such constraints. The exemption for news outlets thus preserves the principle of open justice while addressing the specific mischief that the order seeks to prevent. The approach is similar to injunctive remedies granted in digital content cases, where courts have balanced free expression against the need to prevent misuse of copyrighted or sensitive content.

Rationale and Judicial Concerns

During the hearing, the bench remarked that courts "cannot be a 24/7 entertainment channel" and expressed concern that the democratic purpose of livestreaming was being subverted by individuals seeking to generate viral content. The Court observed that judicial observations made during hearings are often tentative and exploratory in nature, and circulating them out of context creates a misleading impression of the court's position on a given issue.

The bench also highlighted the risk to the fair trial rights of litigants. When portions of hearings are selectively circulated, they can generate public prejudice against parties to a case before the court has delivered its final judgment. This concern extends to the personality rights and privacy of individuals involved in court proceedings, who may find their cases reduced to sensationalized content on social media. Additionally, the question of ownership and permissible use of court recordings remains relevant as digital content distribution evolves.

Protocol Development and Next Steps

The Court indicated that it will frame a comprehensive protocol governing the permissible use of livestreamed judicial proceedings. This protocol is expected to build upon the Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings that were formulated following the Swapnil Tripathi judgment. The Court has also sought reports from High Courts on the impact of livestreaming, suggesting that the final protocol will take into account the experience of courts across the country.

The interim order is significant because it represents the first comprehensive attempt by the Supreme Court to regulate the downstream use of its own livestreamed content. While the 2018 Swapnil Tripathi judgment opened the door to livestreaming, it did not fully address the consequences of making judicial proceedings available for unrestricted digital consumption. The July 24 order begins to fill this gap, and the forthcoming protocol is expected to establish clear guidelines for individuals and organizations wishing to share content from court proceedings through official and regulated digital channels. This development is especially relevant in the context of broader digital governance norms, including those relating to the responsible use of publicly available data on online platforms.