Back
Supreme Court Directs Lawyer to First Approach Intermediaries Under IT Act
The on Wednesday declined to directly order the removal of a video recording of a lawyer’s court appearance from social media, instead directing him to first exhaust the statutory remedies available under the . A three-judge Bench presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, heard a writ petition filed by advocate seeking the takedown of clips from his bail hearing, which he claimed were circulated in violation of the Court’s order barring unauthorized dissemination of judicial proceedings. The Court labeled the petition as premature, noting that the petitioner had not approached the online intermediaries—including major platforms such as , , and —with a takedown request under and the before seeking judicial intervention.
Background: The July 24 Order
On , the Supreme Court issued a comprehensive directive prohibiting the “extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting” of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or any digital platform without prior permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the jurisdictional . The order was subsequently clarified on , to exempt reporting by recognized news outlets, but still barred the publication of audio or video clips. Despite this blanket prohibition, the petitioner alleged that on —nearly a month after the order—a video of his appearance before a Division Bench was uploaded and circulated by a news portal and other digital platforms.
The Petitioner’s Grievance
Appearing in person, argued that the unauthorized posting of the video was causing damage to his professional reputation. He submitted that he was merely appearing in a routine bail matter for his father when the clips were shared, and that the continued circulation amounted to contempt of the Court’s July 24 order. The petitioner urged the Bench to issue a directing respondents—including , , , , , , and —to remove all such videos and to take regulatory measures to prevent future leaks.
“These are people who are creating nuisance, My Lords. These are anti-social elements, My Lords. I don’t have to do anything with that,” Singh submitted, emphasizing that his livelihood was at stake.
Court’s Observations: No Fabrication, No Criminal Act
Chief Justice Kant, during the hearing, drew a sharp distinction between the unauthorized commercial use of authentic court recordings and the far graver offence of manipulating or fabricating content. “You are not saying that they fabricated your video. You are not saying that they used AI or anything else to harm your reputation or cause damage,” the Chief Justice noted.
He elaborated: “We understand if somebody commits contempt of our July 24 order. Suppose the live-streaming is going on and you are arguing before us. If a channel commercially exploits that exchange, it may be committing contempt… But if they add words which we never spoke or attribute something to the Bench which was never said, that is far more serious. They would then be indulging in a criminal act. It may amount to and would require very serious action.”
The Court also questioned the petitioner’s motivation in seeking removal, remarking, “If you are so brave that in open court you can abuse… You can abuse, you can use all the chosen words, then why are you so shy of it now?” The Chief Justice implied that the lawyer might have invited public attention through his courtroom conduct, though the Bench did not elaborate on the specifics.
Exhausting Statutory Remedies: The IT Act Route
Justice Bagchi took the lead in explaining the proper legal procedure. He emphasized that the , through Section 69A and the , provides a statutory framework for aggrieved persons to obtain takedown orders or blocking orders against impermissible digital content. “Take appropriate steps before the service providers for takedown orders… Take damage. Take necessary steps for getting takedown orders,” Justice Bagchi advised.
He further clarified why the Supreme Court had intentionally refrained from issuing explicit directions to intermediaries in its July 24 order: “We had intentionally not issued any direction to intermediaries because takes care of such requirement. When we make a declaration of law, it becomes a prohibition on publication and circulation by an . Any action in breach of that is an act , for which we are again requesting you to take necessary legal recourse. If the legal recourse fails, come to us.”
The Chief Justice added that the petitioner could issue a legal notice to the platforms, stating that the uploading of the video amounts to and an invasion of privacy, and call upon them to immediately remove the content. Only if the intermediaries fail to comply should the Court be approached again.
Prematurity and Withdrawal
Despite the petitioner’s request for the Supreme Court to keep the matter pending while he pursued the administrative remedy, the Bench declined, holding that the petition was premature. “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to initiate immediate action against the intermediaries or the platforms for taking down the video clip, in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act and framed thereunder, coupled with the order dated and passed by this Court in ,” the Court recorded.
The Bench accordingly dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court afresh if the does not yield the desired relief. The Court also refused to grant a blanket order directing all intermediaries to remove videos of all court proceedings, confining its observations to the specific grievance of the petitioner.
Legal Implications and Commentary
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the primacy of the statutory framework under the , in addressing grievances related to online content. By insisting on exhaustion of remedies under Section 69A and the , the Court has signaled that it will not entertain petitions that bypass the administrative machinery designed for content takedowns. This approach aligns with the principle of judicial restraint and encourages litigants to first avail of the remedies provided by the legislature before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the apex court under .
The ruling also underscores the Court’s nuanced view on contempt in the digital age. The Bench clearly distinguished between (a) the unauthorized commercial exploitation of genuine court recordings, which may amount to of its July 24 order, and (b) the fabrication or manipulation of recordings to attribute false statements to judges or litigants, which rises to the level of and warrants severe action. This distinction provides clarity for future cases involving the misuse of court videos.
Impact on Legal Practice
For practising lawyers, this judgment serves as a practical guide: if a client’s court appearance video is misused, the first step is to issue a formal takedown notice under the IT Act to the hosting the content. Only if the platform fails to act within the prescribed timeline should the matter be escalated to the court. The Court’s directive also reinforces the binding nature of its July 24 order, which remains in force and applies to all intermediaries. Lawyers and litigants are now on notice that the courts will expect strict compliance with the statutory grievance mechanism before seeking judicial intervention.
The case is titled and has been disposed of with liberty to approach afresh after invoking the IT Act remedies.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter reflects a careful balance between protecting the dignity of judicial proceedings and respecting the statutory framework for online content regulation. By directing the petitioner to first approach intermediaries under the IT Act, the Court has not only upheld the importance of exhausting alternative remedies but also clarified the contours of contempt in the context of court video recordings. The door remains open for the petitioner to return if the platforms refuse to comply, ensuring that no legitimate grievance goes unredressed while maintaining the efficiency of the Court’s docket. As digital platforms continue to host court proceedings, this judgment will likely serve as a reference point for similar disputes in the future.
