Introduction:
In Harshita Grover v. Union of India & Others (W.P.(C) No. 751/2026), the Supreme Court of India passed an important interim order addressing the growing misuse of audiovisual recordings of court proceedings on social media platforms. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan heard a public interest litigation filed by journalist Harshita Grover seeking safeguards against the unauthorised clipping, editing, dissemination and monetisation of courtroom recordings.
The petition highlighted that although live-streaming of court proceedings was introduced to strengthen transparency and the principle of open justice, the absence of effective safeguards has resulted in selective clips being circulated with misleading captions, sensational commentary and commercial motives. According to the petitioner, such edited videos often distort judicial proceedings, expose judges, lawyers and litigants to public ridicule, and undermine confidence in the justice delivery system.
Considering the seriousness of the issue, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government, all High Courts and social media intermediaries, including Meta and X. Pending further consideration, the Court passed an interim direction prohibiting the extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading or monetisation of audio or video recordings of judicial proceedings without prior permission from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. At the same time, the Court clarified that the order would not affect fair news reporting of court proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties:
Senior Advocate Dr. Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that the petition was not opposed to the live-streaming of court proceedings. Instead, it sought protection against the misuse of recorded proceedings after they entered the public domain. He argued that selective editing of courtroom exchanges strips them of their legal and factual context, creating misleading narratives that damage the reputation of judges, advocates and litigants.
The petitioner relied upon Regulation 9.2 of the Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, which prohibits any person or entity from recording, reproducing, modifying, publishing or disseminating live-streamed proceedings without prior authorisation of the Court. It was argued that despite these existing model rules, widespread violations continue because there is no effective enforcement mechanism. The petition referred to several incidents in which edited courtroom videos went viral, attracting sensational commentary and generating advertising revenue through social media platforms.
The petitioner further contended that unrestricted circulation of edited clips compromises judicial dignity, promotes misinformation and weakens public confidence in constitutional institutions. It requested the Supreme Court to frame comprehensive guidelines regulating the recording, clipping, redistribution and monetisation of judicial proceedings while preserving transparency and the principle of open justice.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, supported the request for interim protection. He emphasised that rapid developments in artificial intelligence have significantly increased the risk of manipulation. According to him, AI technology can alter spoken words while preserving authentic facial expressions and lip movements, making fabricated courtroom exchanges appear genuine. He submitted that selective extraction and AI-generated manipulation of judicial proceedings could seriously mislead the public and erode trust in the judiciary.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that regulating digital content has become one of the greatest legal challenges. He remarked that unrestricted live-streaming could unintentionally convert court proceedings into a source of entertainment rather than public information. He suggested that live-streaming should perhaps remain an exception rather than becoming routine and expressed concern over indiscriminate sharing of virtual hearing links.
Chief Justice Surya Kant also acknowledged the dangers of distorted reporting. Referring to his own experience, he observed that comments attributed to him in the media were sometimes reported inaccurately, demonstrating how judicial observations can easily be taken out of context and misunderstood.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court found that the concerns raised in the petition required immediate attention. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, the Bench considered it necessary to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings until comprehensive guidelines could be framed.
Accordingly, the Court passed an interim order directing that no person shall extract, modify, disseminate, post, repost, upload or monetise audio or video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platform without obtaining prior permission from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.
Importantly, the Court clarified that this restriction would not affect legitimate news reporting of judicial proceedings. The order therefore seeks to strike a balance between the constitutional principle of open justice and the need to prevent distortion of courtroom proceedings through selective editing or commercial exploitation.
The Bench issued notice to all High Courts and directed them to submit reports regarding the implementation of the Supreme Court’s Model Live-Streaming Rules and the practical impact of continuous live-streaming of court proceedings. The Union Government was also directed to identify the appropriate nodal ministries responsible for implementing any future regulatory framework.
The Court further issued notice to major social media intermediaries, including Meta and X, recognising that digital platforms play a significant role in the dissemination and monetisation of courtroom recordings.
The interim order reflects the Court’s concern that while technology has enhanced transparency and public access to justice, it has simultaneously created opportunities for misinformation, sensationalism and commercial misuse. The Bench acknowledged that edited or AI-manipulated courtroom videos have the potential to misrepresent judicial proceedings, damage institutional credibility and influence public perception through incomplete or misleading narratives.
Although the Court did not prohibit live-streaming itself, the observations made during the hearing indicate that the judiciary may revisit the scope and regulation of live-streaming in the future. The proceedings also demonstrate the Court’s recognition that technological developments require corresponding legal safeguards to preserve judicial independence, fairness and public confidence.
The matter will now proceed after responses are received from the Union Government, the High Courts and the concerned digital platforms. The final judgment is expected to shape India’s legal framework governing the recording, dissemination and commercial use of judicial proceedings in the digital era.