SC prohibits unauthorised recording, monetisation of court videos on social media
- Supreme Court has, via an interim order (24 July 2026), barred unauthorised extraction, editing, dissemination, reposting, uploading and monetisation of audio-video recordings of livestreamed judicial proceedings on social media without prior permission from court registrars [S1][S2].
- Order passed by a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana on a PIL by journalist Harshita Grover [S2][S3].
- Tests the balance between judicial transparency (right of public access under Article 21, per Swapnil Tripathi 2018) and dignity/sanctity of judicial process — a recurring GS-II theme on media freedom vs. institutional integrity [S4][S5].
- News reporting of court proceedings is explicitly unaffected by the directions [S2].
2. Why in the News
- On 24 July 2026, the SC passed an interim order restraining extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting or uploading of court proceeding recordings without permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or Registrar General of the jurisdictional High Court [S1][S2][S3].
- Triggered by a PIL filed by journalist Harshita Grover (argued by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh) seeking safeguards against selective clipping and "commercial exploitation" of livestreamed hearings [S1][S2].
- Petition contended that "isolated excerpts" were being clipped and monetised with misleading captions/clickbait, undermining the sanctity of judicial proceedings [S1][S2].
3. Background & Evolution
- 2018: Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India — SC recognised access to justice/open courts as part of Article 21, recommending live-streaming of proceedings in matters of constitutional/national importance [S4][S5].
- Following the verdict, the SC's e-Committee (then headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) formulated Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings for High Courts and subordinate courts [S5].
- October 2020: Gujarat High Court became the first Indian court to livestream proceedings [S5].
- June 2021: e-Committee released draft rules for livestreaming of High Court proceedings [S5].
- September 2022 onward: Supreme Court itself began livestreaming select Constitution Bench hearings.
- 24 July 2026: SC's interim order restricting downstream misuse/monetisation of these very livestreams — closing a gap left open when livestreaming was first permitted [S1][S2][S3].
4. Core Static Facts
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Order date | 24 July 2026 [S1][S2] |
| Bench | CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi, V. Mohana [S2][S3] |
| Petitioner | Harshita Grover (journalist) [S1][S2] |
| Counsel for petitioner | Senior Advocate Vikas Singh [S1] |
| Nature of order | Interim measure, notice issued on PIL [S2] |
| Permission authority (SC) | Secretary General, Supreme Court of India [S1][S2] |
| Permission authority (HCs) | Registrar General of jurisdictional High Court [S1][S2] |
| Prohibited acts | Extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting, uploading of audio-video court recordings on social media/digital platforms without permission [S1][S2] |
| Exemption | Bona fide news reporting of proceedings [S2] |
| Founding precedent | Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), Article 21 [S4][S5] |
| Rule framework body | Supreme Court e-Committee — Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings [S5] |
5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis
Legal / Constitutional - Rests on tension between Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech/press, public's right to know) and the court's inherent power to regulate its own proceedings to preserve dignity of the judicial process [S1][S2]. - Interim, notice-stage order — final contours of regulation to be settled after full hearing on the PIL [S2].
Ethical / Governance - Addresses "sensationalism" and "commercial gain" arising from selective, out-of-context clipping — an accountability/media-ethics issue rather than a transparency rollback [S1][S2]. - Distinguishes protected journalism (news reporting exempted) from monetised clip-farming on platforms like YouTube/Instagram [S2].
Technological - Direct fallout of the shift to digital livestreaming of courts (enabled post-2018), which created a new raw-footage supply chain that platforms and creators began repurposing commercially [S4][S5].
Administrative - Enforcement routed through court registrars (Secretary General/Registrar General) rather than an external regulator (e.g., MeitY/IT Rules), keeping oversight in-house within judiciary [S1][S2]. - Raises questions on how registrars will practically monitor/take down unauthorised content across social media platforms.
Historical - Marks a course-correction in the transparency-reform arc that began with Swapnil Tripathi (2018) and accelerated with Gujarat HC's 2020 livestreaming launch and SC's own 2022 livestreaming rollout [S4][S5].
6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)
- 24 July 2026: SC interim order barring unauthorised recording/monetisation of livestreamed proceedings, on Harshita Grover's PIL [S1][S2][S3].
- Reported same day across national media (ANI, Bar and Bench, Deccan Chronicle, The Hindu) [S1][S2][S3].
- Order followed continuing expansion of SC/HC livestreaming under the e-Committee's Model Rules framework [S5].
7. Prelims Hooks
- SC's interim order on unauthorised court video monetisation was passed on 24 July 2026 [S1][S2].
- Bench comprised CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana [S2][S3].
- Petitioner: journalist Harshita Grover; PIL argued by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh [S1][S2].
- Permission for SC recordings must come from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court; for High Courts, from the Registrar General of the jurisdictional HC [S1][S2].
- The order explicitly does not affect bona fide news reporting of court proceedings [S2].
- Landmark precedent enabling livestreaming: Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), grounding open courts in Article 21 [S4][S5].
- Gujarat High Court was the first Indian court to livestream proceedings, in October 2020 [S5].
- SC's e-Committee (post-2018, then chaired by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) drafted the Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings [S5].
- e-Committee released draft rules for livestreaming of High Court proceedings in June 2021 [S5].
- The 24 July 2026 order is an interim measure — final directions pending further hearing [S2].
8. Mains Relevance
- GS-II: Polity & Governance — Judiciary, transparency vs. institutional dignity, structure/organisation of the judiciary, government policies and interventions.
- GS-II: Also touches Fundamental Rights (Article 19, Article 21) and separation of powers/judicial self-regulation.
- GS-IV (optional angle): Ethics in media — sensationalism, public interest vs. commercial interest in reporting judicial proceedings.
Possible Mains stems: 1. "Livestreaming of court proceedings advances transparency but creates new risks of misuse." Discuss in light of the Supreme Court's 2026 order restricting monetisation of court videos. 2. 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. 3. Trace the evolution of court livestreaming in India from Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) to the present, and evaluate the adequacy of existing safeguards against misuse.
9. Related Topics to Study Next
- Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) — foundational judgment enabling livestreaming.
- e-Committee of the Supreme Court — digitisation of Indian judiciary, e-Courts Mission Mode Project.
- IT Rules, 2021 (intermediary guidelines) — parallel regime governing social media content takedown/liability.
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — related tool for protecting dignity of judicial proceedings.
- Right to Freedom of Speech (Article 19(1)(a)) vs. reasonable restrictions (Article 19(2)) — constitutional balancing test.
- Open Court principle & judicial transparency — comparative practice (UK Supreme Court livestreaming, US federal court camera bans).
- Sub judice rule and media trial — related debate on media conduct during ongoing cases.
10. Common Errors / Trap Areas
- Do not confuse this order with a ban on livestreaming itself — livestreaming continues; only unauthorised downstream extraction/monetisation is barred [S1][S2].
- Do not conflate the Secretary General (SC) and Registrar General (HCs) — different officers are the permission authority for each level [S1][S2].
- The order is an interim measure with notice issued, not a final judgment — avoid citing it as settled law.
- Note the order exempts news reporting, so students should not describe it as a blanket ban on media coverage of courts [S2].
- Don't misattribute the 2018 livestreaming precedent — it is Swapnil Tripathi, not the earlier Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar case (which had actually restricted press reporting of in-camera proceedings).
11. Sources
- [S1] SC Bans Unauthorized Court Livestream Use, Monetization — https://www.newkerala.com/news/a/supreme-court-bars-unauthorised-sharing-monetisation-court-proceedings-922.htm — (tier: 4)
- [S2] Supreme Court bars unauthorised sharing and monetisation of court proceedings — https://aninews.in/news/national/general-news/supreme-court-bars-unauthorised-sharing-and-monetisation-of-court-proceedings20260724162139/ — (tier: 4)
- [S3] SC prohibits unauthorised recording, monetisation of court videos on social media — The Hindu (article excerpt supplied by user), Chennai edition, 25 July 2026, p.16 — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-07-25/th_chennai/articleGLFGA3M78-15633204.ece — (tier: 4)
- [S4] Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court Of India on 26 September, 2018 — https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43629806/ — (tier: 4)
- [S5] SC committee to frame rules for live streaming of cases in high courts and district courts — https://theprint.in/judiciary/sc-committee-to-frame-rules-for-live-streaming-of-cases-in-high-courts-and-district-courts/536089/ — (tier: 4)