Supreme Court asks Centre to take measures against online misuse of court feeds

The Supreme Court has asked the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, or MeitY, to formulate measures against the commercial exploitation of live-streamed judicial proceedings. The issue matters because court footage released for public benefit may be reused for private profit in ways the court has prohibited.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that suggestions from High Courts and other stakeholders had been sent to MeitY. The Ministry will consider them and respond in a few days. The court is also considering whether material uploaded against its restrictions should be removed.

The future policy is expected to include ways to act against non-compliance. The court recently banned unauthorised use and circulation of livestreamed proceedings on social media and digital platforms. The plea will be listed again after the Deepavali vacation, when the Ministry’s response is expected to inform further consideration.

Live-streamed judicial proceedings are video broadcasts of court hearings that people can watch online instead of attending the courtroom. Making proceedings available to the public can improve openness and let people observe how judicial work is conducted. The article links this public access with the idea that court material serves a public good.

The Supreme Court’s concern is not public viewing itself. It is the unauthorised extraction, modification, circulation, and commercial use of clips. For example, a video may be copied from an official stream, altered, and reposted with a misleading caption. The court has banned unauthorised use and circulation on social media and digital platforms.

The current system is being reviewed because public access can create opportunities for misuse. The court has asked MeitY to develop a policy response, including action against violations. It is also considering authenticated, watermarked footage and possible removal of material uploaded against its restrictions.

Unauthorised or improper use includes taking clips from judicial proceedings without permission, modifying them, circulating them, or using them commercially. The Supreme Court has specifically objected to the commercial exploitation of material intended for the public good. Its restrictions apply to social media and digital platforms.

A practical example is a person extracting a short court clip, changing its context or editing it, and reposting it with a misleading caption. Another platform might circulate that clip as though it were an official recording. The court is concerned about this chain of extraction, alteration, circulation, and misleading representation.

The court recently banned unauthorised use and circulation of livestreamed proceedings. It is now asking MeitY to formulate measures and is considering directions to remove material uploaded in breach of its orders. The emerging policy is also expected to include action against people who fail to comply with the court’s directions.

The article does not state how many people can watch an online court livestream or how many can attend a courtroom in person. In general, a physical courtroom has a limited number of seats, while an internet stream can be viewed by people across locations, subject to access and platform limits. Therefore, the potential online audience is much broader.

This difference explains why unauthorised clips can spread widely. A single hearing can be watched directly online, copied into shorter clips, modified, and circulated across digital platforms. The court’s concern is that broad reach can also enable misleading representations and commercial exploitation of footage released for public benefit.

The Supreme Court is responding to that wider digital reach through restrictions and a proposed policy. MeitY is considering suggestions from High Courts and stakeholders. However, no exact comparison is available from the article, so any numerical estimate would go beyond the stated facts.

When altered court footage is circulated with misleading captions or presented as genuine, viewers may misunderstand what happened during a proceeding. The article does not list a specific incident or punishment, but it identifies misleading representations and manipulated versions as central concerns. The risk is especially serious because the footage concerns judicial proceedings.

For example, a clip could be extracted from a longer hearing, modified, and paired with a caption that changes its apparent meaning. People encountering the short video might not know whether it came from an official source or whether it was edited. The court is examining unauthorised extraction, alteration, circulation, and commercial use of such material.

The court has banned unauthorised use and circulation on social media and digital platforms. It is considering directing the removal of material uploaded in breach of its restrictions. A policy from MeitY may add measures for action against those who do not comply.

A verifiable digital signature or watermark would attach an identifiable marker to an official court clip. Viewers and digital platforms could check that marker against the court’s source. This could make it easier to tell genuine footage from altered or unofficial versions, addressing the court’s concern about misleading representations.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan suggested that every official clip released by the court should carry such a signature or watermark. He also proposed that all proceedings be placed on the Supreme Court’s website in an authenticated and watermarked format. A platform could compare a circulated clip with the authenticated version before treating it as official.

The proposal would support identification, but the article does not say that it has been adopted or explain a removal system in detail. The court is considering removal of material uploaded in breach of its restrictions. MeitY is also expected to formulate measures, including action against non-compliance.

Judicial transparency means making court work sufficiently open for the public to observe and understand it. Live-streaming can support that goal by allowing people to view proceedings online. The article also makes clear that public access does not authorise every later use of the footage, especially commercial exploitation or misleading circulation.

The balance involves preserving access while protecting authenticity and context. Official clips could be released with verifiable digital signatures or watermarks, as Prashant Bhushan suggested. Proceedings could also be made available on the Supreme Court’s website in authenticated, watermarked form. These steps would help viewers and platforms identify reliable footage.

The court has already banned unauthorised use and circulation on social media and digital platforms. It is examining removal of material that breaches those restrictions and has asked MeitY to formulate further measures. Suggestions from High Courts and stakeholders will inform the Ministry’s response after the Deepavali vacation.