Supreme Court Bars Unauthorised Sharing and Monetisation of Court Hearing Recordings
The Supreme Court passed an interim order on 24 July 2026 prohibiting the extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting or uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the jurisdictional High Courts. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the order while issuing notice on a public interest litigation — filed by Harshita Grover — seeking safeguards against misuse of live-streamed court proceedings through selective clipping and "commercial exploitation." The court clarified that the restriction will not affect news reporting. It said the measure was necessary to prevent misuse of judicial proceedings in the digital age.
Key Facts & Details
10 points- 1The Supreme Court passed an interim order on 24 July 2026 on court hearing recordings.
- 2It bars extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting and uploading of such recordings.
- 3Permission is needed from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the relevant High Court.
- 4The Bench comprised CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
- 5The order came on a PIL filed by Harshita Grover seeking safeguards on live-streamed proceedings.
- 6The PIL flagged selective clipping and commercial exploitation of hearing videos.
- 7The court clarified the curb will not affect news reporting.
Deep Dive
- +The restriction applies to social media and other digital platforms.
- +The court said the step was needed to prevent misuse of proceedings in the digital age.
- +The court issued notice on the petition while granting the interim relief.
Exam Focus
Whose permission is now required before sharing audio-video recordings of court proceedings on social media?
Exam Relevance & Angle
Live-streaming of court proceedings, open justice and the interim-order mechanism are recurring polity and judiciary topics, and the named officials are testable specifics.
Target Exams
Background & Context
The Supreme Court began live-streaming its proceedings to make justice visible to the public — the principle of open justice. The unintended consequence was that hours of footage became raw material for social media: a single sharp exchange between a judge and a lawyer could be clipped out of context, captioned misleadingly and monetised for views. That is what the petition targeted. An interim order is temporary relief granted while a case is still being heard, so this is a stopgap rather than a final ruling. Carving out news reporting keeps the open-justice purpose intact while restricting the clip economy.
Test Yourself
1 / 2Under the Supreme Court's interim order, whose permission is required to share recordings of court proceedings?
Source
This topic is important for:
