The Supreme Court of India has issued a clear clarification: news outlets are permitted to report on court proceedings, but must refrain from using audio or video clips in their coverage. This update comes in response to confusion stemming from a recent interim order issued on July 24.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, provided this clarification during arguments over several petitions challenging rules on recording, livestreaming, and sharing court proceedings.
—
## What the Court Clarified
– The July 24 interim order barred sharing or uploading audio-video clips of court hearings but explicitly allowed recognized news outlets to report on proceedings.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that media entities are free to cover hearings, judicial pronouncements, and legal developments, provided they do not include audio or video excerpts from the courtroom.
– Specifically, paragraph 10 of the July 24 order prohibits the extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading, or monetization of audio-video recordings of court proceedings on digital platforms, unless prior permission is granted by the Registrar General of the relevant court.
—
## Why This Clarification Was Needed
The court noted ongoing confusion among stakeholders about the exact scope of the restriction—especially post-publication of paragraph 11 of the July 24 order—which appeared to permit reporting by news outlets while imposing a ban on sharing audiovisual clips.
Responding to this, the Bench stated plainly: “The said paragraph makes it clear that the order is not to be construed as imposing a blanket prohibition on the reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets.”
—
## Key Details from the July 24 Interim Order
The order came in response to journalist Harshita Grover’s petition. She sought guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing, sharing, and monetization of audiovisual recordings of judicial proceedings. Her concern: selective or decontextualized use of courtroom footage harms court dignity and erodes public trust in the justice system.
Under that order:
– All High Courts were directed to share reports on adopting the Supreme Court’s model livestreaming guidelines and to assess the effects of continuous livestreaming.
– The Union Government was asked to propose which ministries should enforce the petition’s requested changes.
– Social media platforms—such as Meta and X—also received notice as parties who must respond.
—
## Parties Involved & Next Steps
RTI activists opposing the broad restrictions on sharing court clips have been allowed to intervene in the matter.
The Supreme Court adjourned the case until **September 18, 2026**, to allow the Union Government, High Courts, and social media intermediaries time to file their responses.
—
## Takeaway for News Outlets and the Public
– Recognised media can continue reporting on all court proceedings and rulings.
– Use of audio or video clips from those proceedings is forbidden unless explicit permission is obtained.
– The aim is to prevent misuse: misleading edits, decontextualised clips, and unauthorized monetization.
—
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article. before returning it.
