Back
Directs Lawyer to First Seek of His Court Video Clips from Intermediaries
The of India on Wednesday declined to directly order the removal of audio-video clips of a lawyer’s arguments that had been circulated on social media platforms, instead directing him to first exhaust remedies available under the . A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana granted the petitioner—an advocate whose appearance in a bail matter went viral—liberty to approach social media intermediaries for orders, with the option to return to court if the grievance remained unresolved.
The ruling provides a significant procedural clarification for legal professionals aggrieved by the of court proceedings on digital platforms, particularly in the wake of the ’s order banning the extraction and circulation of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings without prior permission.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, identified as , had appeared before a bench on to argue for his father’s bail, reportedly offering to furnish his bar license as surety. Clips of that hearing were later uploaded on platforms including (formerly Twitter), , and (Facebook and Instagram), as well as on news portals. Singh sought directions for the of these posts, arguing that their continued availability violated his to under .
He further alleged that the circulation of the clips continued even after the ’s order, which explicitly prohibited the extraction, dissemination, monetization, posting, or hosting of audio-video recordings of court proceedings on social media or any digital platform without prior approval from the Secretary General of the or Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional .
Court Declines Direct Intervention
At the outset, the bench questioned the petitioner’s motive for seeking removal of the clips. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked, “If you are so brave, that you can abuse in open court, you can use all these chosen words of your choice, why do you want to hide?” The observation appeared to reflect the court’s view that the petitioner was not alleging any fabrication or manipulation of the video content.
The Chief Justice further noted that the posts were not claimed to have been doctored or generated using artificial intelligence. He stated, “You are not saying that they (news portals) have used AI or something to harm your reputation or cause damage… Suppose this proceeding is not supposed to be commercially encashed, but assuming some channel puts this recording and starts utilizing… they may be in contempt… but unless they are adding some words which you have never spoken or they are adding some attribution to the bench which we have never spoken – that would be a more offending situation. Because then they are indulging in criminal activity. That will require a very serious view.”
This distinction between mere unauthorized publication and manipulative or defamatory use of court footage emerged as a key theme in the court’s reasoning.
Exhaustion of Legal Remedies
Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the petition was premature. He noted that the petitioner had not approached the social media intermediaries or the authorities under before seeking judicial intervention. “Take steps for with service providers [social media intermediaries]. It’s an damage. If the orders are not complied with, come to us. You must . Law gives remedies in respect of impermissible publications in digital domain. You have a post in violation of court order, give them intimation. This is a .”
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the order did not specifically name social media intermediaries, only news portals, and that intermediaries might therefore resist requests. Justice Bagchi responded that the bench had consciously refrained from issuing direct directions to intermediaries because already provides a mechanism for blocking content. “When we make a , it becomes a prohibition in the publication and circulation by an intermediary. Any action in breach of that is an act , for which we are again requesting you to take necessary steps.”
Clarification on the Scope of the Order
The court also addressed the timeline of the offending posts. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that while the order banned dissemination from that date onward, the clips of the hearing were uploaded on —well after the ban. This, he argued, demonstrated a clear violation. However, the bench reiterated that the proper course was to first invoke the IT Act’s provisions.
The CJI further clarified that if any digital platform added commentary or selectively edited clips to distort the court’s proceedings, that would be viewed very seriously and could amount to . “If someone adds something to what the court observed or presents the proceedings in such a manner to generate controversy, we will take a very serious view of such acts,” he warned.
Implications for Legal Practice
The ruling serves as a practical guide for lawyers and litigants who find their court appearances being circulated without consent. It establishes that the primary remedy lies not in a direct petition to the , but in approaching the designated intermediaries or the government authorities under the IT Act. Only if that remedy fails can the court be moved again.
Legal professionals should note that the court expects them to first issue a to the platform concerned, citing the prohibition and the , and seek a under . If the intermediary fails to comply, the aggrieved person can then file a fresh petition before the or the .
The judgment also underscores the court’s reluctance to issue against all social media platforms for removal of court clips across the country. The bench declined the petitioner’s request for such a sweeping order, confining the remedy to the specific content that harms the individual concerned.
Conclusion
The ’s decision in reinforces the in . By directing the petitioner to first approach intermediaries, the court has signaled that it will not entertain premature petitions when exist. At the same time, it has left the door open for effective redressal if those remedies prove inadequate.
For the legal community, the case highlights the importance of understanding the IT Act’s mechanisms and the court’s nuanced approach to balancing privacy, dignity, and the public interest in open court proceedings. As the use of court video clips on social media continues to rise, this ruling provides a clear roadmap for those seeking to protect their rights in the digital age.
