Examine the tension between the right to freedom of speech and expression and the judiciary's power to regulate dissemination of its own proceedings, with reference to recent Supreme Court directions.

Q. Examine the tension between the right to freedom of speech and expression and the judiciary's power to regulate dissemination of its own proceedings, with reference to recent Supreme Court directions. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Live-streaming, endorsed in Swapnil Tripathi v. Union of India (2018) as flowing from the right to access justice under Article 21 [1], turned courtrooms into publicly available content. The Supreme Court's interim order of 24 July 2026 curbing unauthorised use of these recordings [2] reopens where free expression ends and judicial self-regulation begins.

The free-speech claim over court proceedings - Article 19(1)(a) includes the public's right to know; Article 145(4) mandates pronouncement in open court. - Swapnil Tripathi held public access to proceedings integral to Article 21, directing live-streaming of constitutionally important cases [1]. - The e-Committee's Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings extended the framework to High Courts and subordinate courts [3].

The judiciary's countervailing regulatory power - Courts possess inherent power to protect the sanctity of proceedings; Article 19(2) permits restrictions for contempt and decency. - The Model Rules themselves retain court control over recordings and bar unauthorised capture, balancing privacy of litigants and witnesses [3].

The recent directions as the flashpoint - A Bench of CJI Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, on a PIL by journalist Harshita Grover, barred extraction, editing, uploading and monetisation of hearing recordings without prior permission of the Secretary General (SC) or Registrar General (High Courts) [2][4]. - Grievance was decontextualised clipping and clickbait monetisation, not reporting; bona fide news reporting is exempted [4].

Where the tension remains unresolved - A prior-permission regime risks operating as prior restraint on commentary, satire and legal education. - Registrars' capacity to monitor takedowns across platforms is untested, overlapping the IT Rules, 2021 regime.

The order is best read as regulating commercial misuse rather than retreating from transparency; it is interim, with final contours awaited. A durable balance lies in notified rules with narrowly defined prohibitions, a carve-out for journalism, research and education, and a time-bound appeal to a judicial officer — preserving open courts while protecting the dignity that sustains public trust in them.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (26 September 2018) — live-streaming grounded in Article 21 right to access justice; open court principle 2. Supreme Court curbs posting and monetisation of court videos on social media (order reported) — interim order barring hosting/monetisation without prior permission 3. Model Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, e-Committee, Supreme Court of India — framework for High Courts; court control over recordings; privacy safeguards 4. Supreme Court bars unauthorised sharing and monetisation of court proceedings (ANI, 24 July 2026) — bench composition, petitioner, permission authorities, news-reporting exemption