Stop the Clips: SC Tells MeitY to Penalise Unauthorised Courtroom Videos
The Supreme Court directs MeitY to include penalties for unauthorised sharing and monetisation of courtroom recordings in its new policy.
The Supreme Court of India has stepped up its fight against the unregulated circulation of judicial proceedings online. In a significant move, the apex court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure that the proposed policy on courtroom videos sharing policy includes strict provisions for penalising those who violate bans on the unauthorised sharing of audio-video recordings of court proceedings.
Cracking Down on Commercial Exploitation
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana addressed the issue while hearing a batch of petitions regarding the live-streaming, recording, and publication of court hearings. The court's primary concern lies in how courtroom recordings are being manipulated or commercially exploited on digital platforms.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that stakeholders' suggestions have already been forwarded to MeitY. The ministry is currently drafting a policy specifically designed to tackle the misleading circulation and commercial gain derived from court recordings. Mehta further highlighted that existing directions from the apex court are being ignored and suggested that the policy should allow for take-down orders against offending content.
The Battle Between Journalism and Monetisation
The proceedings saw a debate over the balance between public information and private profit. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing an intervenor, proposed a technical solution: the creation of an authenticated repository of recordings on official websites. He suggested using watermarks and cryptographic signatures to ensure that any clip used is sourced from verified, untampered material.
While Justice Bagchi noted that administrative measures—such as preventing downloads from High Court YouTube channels—are being considered, he admitted that enforcement remains a difficult challenge.
Key Points of Contention:
- Permission Requirements: The bench indicated that anyone wishing to extract clips from official recordings would need prior permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, with the purpose of the use being strictly scrutinised.
- Journalistic Freedom: Prashant Bhushan cautioned that such restrictions might hinder legitimate news reporting.
- The 'YouTuber' Factor: The Solicitor General countered this by arguing that YouTubers who monetise courtroom clips are often not serving a genuine public purpose.
Existing Restrictions and the Path Forward
This latest directive follows a strict order issued by the Supreme Court on July 24. That order prohibited the extraction, dissemination, monetisation, uploading, modification, or storage of judicial proceedings on social media or any digital platform without explicit permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrars General of the respective High Courts.
Crucially, the court clarified that these restrictions are not intended to stifle the news reporting of court proceedings, but rather to prevent the distortion of judicial records for profit or misinformation.
"It is said the formulation of policy is under consideration. Necessary measures for taking action against those who fail to comply with directions will also be incorporated in policy," the bench ordered.
The legal push originates from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Harshita Grover, who sought comprehensive guidelines to regulate how audio-visual recordings of court proceedings are clipped, edited, and monetised across the digital landscape.