Live-streamed proceedings not meant for commercial gain, reiterates Supreme Court

What did the Supreme Court reiterate about the unauthorised use and circulation of livestreamed court proceedings?

The Supreme Court stood by its restriction on unauthorised use and circulation of livestreamed judicial proceedings. The core distinction is between public access and commercial exploitation. People may watch proceedings and report them, but recordings cannot be freely turned into monetised digital content. The court said public-good material should not be exploited for personal gain.

The July 24 interim order covers a wide range of actions involving courtroom audio and video. Without permission, people cannot extract, disseminate, monetise, post, repost, upload, transmit, modify, store, or host recordings on social media or other digital platforms. Permission must come from the Supreme Court Secretary General or the relevant High Court Registrar General.

The Chief Justice clarified that the rule is not a gag on viewing hearings or court reportage. Recognised news outlets may report proceedings without using audio or video clips. The court invited pleadings and suggestions for guidelines, while Justice Bagchi highlighted lawyers’ promotional use of videos as especially serious.

What are livestreamed judicial proceedings, and how can the public normally access them?

Livestreamed judicial proceedings are court hearings transmitted live through audio and video. They let people observe hearings without physically entering the courtroom. In this case, the Supreme Court treated livestreaming as a way to support public access, not as permission to freely reuse the resulting recordings for commercial purposes.

The public can normally access a live stream through the court’s authorised digital channel or platform. The article does not name that channel, so it does not establish a specific website or access procedure. It does make clear that the public may view live-streamed proceedings. The Chief Justice said the restriction does not prevent viewing or court reportage.

The important limit comes after or during access. The July 24 order prohibits unauthorised extraction, copying-related dissemination, posting, reposting, uploading, transmission, modification, storage, hosting, or monetisation of audio-video recordings. Permission must come from the Supreme Court Secretary General or a jurisdictional High Court Registrar General.

How broad is the restriction imposed by the July 24 order, and which kinds of copying, sharing, or storage does it cover?

The restriction is broad because it regulates the entire digital life of a judicial recording. It is not limited to selling clips or uploading complete hearings. The order requires prior permission before anyone may use the audio-video material in the ways listed by the court. This matters because even apparently minor reuse can spread or alter official courtroom content.

Specifically, the order bars extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, and hosting of judicial audio-video recordings. The ban applies on social media and any other digital platforms. It therefore covers copying out material, sharing it, earning money from it, editing it, keeping it online or offline, and making it available through a platform.

Permission must come from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrars General of the relevant High Courts. The court later clarified that the order does not stop viewing or ordinary court reportage. Recognised news outlets may continue reporting, but without utilising hearing audio or video clippings.

What can recognised news organisations, lawyers, and members of the public still do under the court’s clarification?

The clarification preserves public observation of the courts. The Chief Justice said the explicit bar is not a gag or restriction on viewing live-streamed proceedings or court reportage. This means members of the public can continue watching available livestreams, while reporting remains possible within the limits set by the order.

Recognised news outlets may continue reporting on proceedings, but the Supreme Court clarified on July 31 that they cannot utilise audio and video clippings of hearings. The July 24 order also leaves room for authorised use because the Secretary General or relevant High Court Registrar General can grant prior permission for covered digital activities.

Lawyers may watch proceedings and engage in advocacy, but they cannot upload or promote hearing videos for their own professional gain. Justice Bagchi said such conduct is adverse to advocacy and the legal profession. The court is collecting pleadings and stakeholder suggestions for guidelines that prevent commercialisation while preserving access and reporting.

Why does the court distinguish between public access to proceedings and commercial exploitation of court recordings?

The distinction protects two different values. Public access allows people to see how courts exercise authority and supports informed reporting. Commercial exploitation uses the same material to generate private income or professional advantage. The Supreme Court said something intended for public good should not be exploited for money, especially when the exploitation is unauthorised.

The court’s concern is practical, not simply theoretical. Justice Bagchi said lawyers were uploading and promoting courtroom videos for their own promotional purposes. That transforms judicial proceedings into advertising material. The July 24 order therefore covers monetisation and many forms of digital reuse, including posting, editing, storage, and hosting, unless prior permission is obtained.

The clarification keeps the access principle intact. People may view livestreamed proceedings, and recognised news organisations may report without using audio or video clips. The court is now seeking stakeholder suggestions for anti-commercialisation guidelines. Its approach aims to preserve transparency while preventing recordings made for public access from becoming private promotional assets.

Why does using courtroom videos to promote a lawyer’s professional services conflict with rules governing legal advocacy?

Legal advocacy is meant to assist the court and represent clients, not to create promotional media for a lawyer. The article links this expectation to a Bar Council of India rule that a lawyer will not canvas for professional gains. Using courtroom videos to advertise skills or success can therefore blur the line between advocacy and personal marketing.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said lawyers were uploading and promoting hearing videos for their own promotional purposes. The court treated that conduct as serious because the videos show proceedings held for a public purpose, not content produced as private advertising. The July 24 order also bars unauthorised posting, reposting, uploading, monetisation, and other digital uses.

The court’s concern is about professional standards as well as recording control. It said such actions are completely adverse to advocacy and the legal profession. Lawyers can still view proceedings, but they must not commercially exploit recordings or use them for personal promotion without the required permission. Stakeholder suggestions may shape future guidelines.

What is the principle of open justice, and why is it important in a system where courts exercise public power?

Open justice is the principle that court proceedings should generally be accessible to the public and capable of public scrutiny. It supports confidence in courts because decisions and arguments are not entirely hidden. In the article, activists argued that the July 24 order reversed the principle of open justice, which the Supreme Court had upheld in many earlier judgments.

Livestreaming makes that principle more practical by allowing people to watch proceedings remotely. The Chief Justice confirmed that the restriction is not a gag on viewing hearings or court reportage. At the same time, the court drew a boundary around recordings. Public visibility does not automatically grant permission to copy, edit, store, upload, or sell courtroom audio and video.

The current position therefore combines access with controlled reuse. Recognised news outlets may report without using audio or video clips, and the public may view proceedings. The court has invited pleadings and stakeholder suggestions for guidelines. Those guidelines may define how transparency can continue without commercial exploitation.

Key Facts:

📌 The court reaffirmed its ban on unauthorised use of livestreamed judicial proceedings.

📌 Public-good material cannot be commercially exploited for personal gain.

📌 The court invited suggestions for anti-commercialisation guidelines.

📌 Livestreaming lets people observe hearings remotely through audio and video.

📌 The court said its restriction does not block viewing live-streamed proceedings.

📌 The article does not identify a specific public access platform.

📌 The order covers extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, and reposting.