Should the circulation of court proceedings on digital platforms be regulated? Examine with reference to Article 19(2).

Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on free speech only on listed grounds, including contempt of court, decency and public order. In July 2026 the Supreme Court issued an interim order. It barred posting, monetising or modifying court recordings on digital platforms without prior permission [1]. Some regulation is needed, but it must be narrowly framed to stay within Article 19(2).

Why regulation is justified

• Contempt of court: Edited, mis-captioned clips can scandalise judges and weaken public trust. The Model Rules make unauthorised use punishable under the Copyright Act, 1957, the IT Act, 2000 and the law of contempt [2].
• Decency and privacy: Matrimonial, sexual-offence and POCSO cases are excluded from streaming [2]. Viral clips of other hearings can still expose litigants, which engages privacy under Puttaswamy (2017).
• Public order: Benches may exclude cases likely to provoke communal enmity [2].
• Commercial exploitation: The SC held that content meant for public good cannot be exploited for personal gain [4]. Monetisation is a trade under Art. 19(1)(g), so it can be restricted under Art. 19(6).

Where regulation risks exceeding Article 19(2)

• Prior restraint: A blanket permission rule also catches honest, unedited sharing. "Commercial gain" is not a ground listed in Art. 19(2).
• Open justice: Swapnil Tripathi (2018) linked live-streaming to the right of access to justice under Art. 21 [3]. Sharing clips also spreads legal literacy.
• Chilling effect: The Court itself clarified that the order does not affect reporting by recognised news outlets [1]. The CJI also stressed it is "not a gag" [4].
• Enforceability: One office cannot vet mass screen-recordings. In practice, enforcement falls to platform takedowns after a clip has already gone viral.

Way forward

• Permission by category: The Rules already allow unedited authorised recordings for news, training and academic use, but never for commercial purposes [2]. This should become the default.
• Target distortion and monetisation, not sharing as such.
• Easy-to-find official archive with timestamps, so viral clips can be checked against the full hearing.
• Consultative rule-making: Repeat the e-Committee's 2021 practice of releasing draft rules for public comment [5].

Regulation is therefore justified, but only against distortion, privacy breaches and profiteering. Rules framed around purpose, not permission, would satisfy Article 19(2) and still keep courts open to the public, in line with SDG 16's goal of transparent institutions.