UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Top court allows reportage on proceedings, curbs use of clips

Q1. With reference to the Supreme Court's interim order of 24 July 2026 concerning audio-visual recordings of judicial proceedings, consider the following acts: 1. Monetisation of recordings of live-streamed proceedings on digital platforms 2. Uploading and reposting of audio-video recordings of hearings on social media without prior permission 3. Publication of a textual account of a hearing by a recognised news outlet 4. Extraction and modification of audio-visual recordings of judicial proceedings Which of the above is/are correctly identified as acts restricted by that order?

  1. Monetisation of recordings of live-streamed proceedings on digital platforms
  2. Uploading and reposting of audio-video recordings of hearings on social media without prior permission
  3. Publication of a textual account of a hearing by a recognised news outlet
  4. Extraction and modification of audio-visual recordings of judicial proceedings
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 2, 3 and 4
  • C. 1, 2 and 4
  • D. 3 and 4 only

Q2. Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's interim order of 24 July 2026 and its clarification of 31 July 2026 on recordings of court proceedings: 1. The clarification did away with the requirement of prior permission for uploading recordings, substituting it with a post-facto intimation to the court registry. 2. The clarification stated that the earlier order was not to be construed as imposing a blanket prohibition on the reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets. 3. The original order was passed by a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, and the clarification came from a Bench headed by the same Chief Justice. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The clarification did away with the requirement of prior permission for uploading recordings, substituting it with a post-facto intimation to the court registry.
  2. The clarification stated that the earlier order was not to be construed as imposing a blanket prohibition on the reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets.
  3. The original order was passed by a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, and the clarification came from a Bench headed by the same Chief Justice.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q3. The Bench which passed the 2026 interim order restricting the use of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on digital platforms, and which later clarified that order, was headed by which one of the following judges?

  • A. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
  • B. Justice Surya Kant
  • C. Justice V. Mohana
  • D. Justice Manoj Misra

Q4. Consider the following statements about the case in which the Supreme Court restricted the use of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings: 1. The interim order restricting circulation of recordings of court proceedings was passed in July 2026. 2. The transparency activists whose intervention application was allowed in the matter are Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri. 3. The Supreme Court's proceedings were first live-streamed in August 2022, at the ceremonial Bench of the outgoing Chief Justice N. V. Ramana. 4. The Supreme Court judgment recognising live-streaming as part of the right of access to justice was delivered in 2015. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The interim order restricting circulation of recordings of court proceedings was passed in July 2026.
  2. The transparency activists whose intervention application was allowed in the matter are Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri.
  3. The Supreme Court's proceedings were first live-streamed in August 2022, at the ceremonial Bench of the outgoing Chief Justice N. V. Ramana.
  4. The Supreme Court judgment recognising live-streaming as part of the right of access to justice was delivered in 2015.
  • A. 1, 2 and 3
  • B. 1 and 4 only
  • C. 2, 3 and 4
  • D. 1, 3 and 4

Q5. Consider the following statements regarding the framework for live-streaming of court proceedings in India: 1. The Supreme Court's first live-streamed sitting was a ceremonial Bench in August 2022, whereas regular live-streaming of Constitution Bench hearings commenced only in September 2022. 2. The 2018 judgment permitted live-streaming, in the first instance, of cases of constitutional and national importance rather than of every category of case. 3. Under the draft model rules circulated by the Supreme Court's e-Committee, the final decision on whether a proceeding is to be live-streamed rests with the Registrar General and not with the Bench hearing the matter. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The Supreme Court's first live-streamed sitting was a ceremonial Bench in August 2022, whereas regular live-streaming of Constitution Bench hearings commenced only in September 2022.
  2. The 2018 judgment permitted live-streaming, in the first instance, of cases of constitutional and national importance rather than of every category of case.
  3. Under the draft model rules circulated by the Supreme Court's e-Committee, the final decision on whether a proceeding is to be live-streamed rests with the Registrar General and not with the Bench hearing the matter.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q6. The High Court of which one of the following States is described as the first in the country to telecast its court proceedings live on YouTube?

  • A. Karnataka
  • B. Gujarat
  • C. Odisha
  • D. Madhya Pradesh

Q7. Consider the following categories of cases: 1. Matrimonial matters, including transfer petitions arising from them 2. Cases concerning sexual offences, including proceedings for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code 3. Matters concerning gender-based violence against women 4. Public interest litigation relating to environmental clearances Which of the above is/are correctly identified as categories excluded from live-streaming under the draft model rules circulated by the Supreme Court's e-Committee?

  1. Matrimonial matters, including transfer petitions arising from them
  2. Cases concerning sexual offences, including proceedings for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
  3. Matters concerning gender-based violence against women
  4. Public interest litigation relating to environmental clearances
  • A. 1, 2 and 3
  • B. 2 and 4 only
  • C. 1, 3 and 4
  • D. 1, 2, 3 and 4

Q8. Consider the following statements about the legal anchors of the open court principle in India: 1. Section 366 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 carries the heading 'Court to be open'. 2. Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that a person is not guilty of contempt for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding. 3. Section 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 makes the publication of a fair and accurate summary of an order made by a court sitting in chambers or in camera contempt of court in every case. 4. The Supreme Court's 2018 verdict traced live-streaming of proceedings to the right of access to justice flowing from Article 21. Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

  1. Section 366 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 carries the heading 'Court to be open'.
  2. Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that a person is not guilty of contempt for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding.
  3. Section 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 makes the publication of a fair and accurate summary of an order made by a court sitting in chambers or in camera contempt of court in every case.
  4. The Supreme Court's 2018 verdict traced live-streaming of proceedings to the right of access to justice flowing from Article 21.
  • A. 1 and 2
  • B. 2 and 4
  • C. 1, 3 and 4
  • D. 3 only

Q9. Consider the following statements about the law of contempt of court in India as it interacts with freedom of speech and expression: 1. Under the amendment of 2006, a court may permit justification by truth as a valid defence in a contempt proceeding if satisfied that it is in the public interest and that the request to invoke it is bona fide. 2. Civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 means wilful disobedience of an order of a court. 3. The Law Commission of India's review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 recommended that the definition of criminal contempt be deleted from the Act. 4. No court may impose a sentence for contempt unless satisfied that the contempt substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice. Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

  1. Under the amendment of 2006, a court may permit justification by truth as a valid defence in a contempt proceeding if satisfied that it is in the public interest and that the request to invoke it is bona fide.
  2. Civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 means wilful disobedience of an order of a court.
  3. The Law Commission of India's review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 recommended that the definition of criminal contempt be deleted from the Act.
  4. No court may impose a sentence for contempt unless satisfied that the contempt substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice.
  • A. 3 only
  • B. 1 and 3
  • C. 2 and 4
  • D. 1, 2 and 4

Q10. The review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which concluded that the Act needed no amendment was carried out by which one of the following bodies?

  • A. The Law Commission of India
  • B. The e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India
  • C. The National Legal Services Authority of India
  • D. The Department of Justice in the Ministry of Law and Justice

Q11. Consider the following statements regarding the permission regime for use of recordings of judicial proceedings laid down by the Supreme Court in 2026: 1. For recordings of Supreme Court proceedings the prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court is required, while for High Court proceedings the permission of the Registrar General of the High Court concerned is required. 2. The intervention filed by transparency activists contended that making the sharing of official recordings dependent on such prior permission subjects a constitutional right to administrative discretion without any clear standards being laid down. 3. The clarification issued a week after the original order shifted the power to grant permission in respect of High Court recordings from the Registrar General to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. For recordings of Supreme Court proceedings the prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court is required, while for High Court proceedings the permission of the Registrar General of the High Court concerned is required.
  2. The intervention filed by transparency activists contended that making the sharing of official recordings dependent on such prior permission subjects a constitutional right to administrative discretion without any clear standards being laid down.
  3. The clarification issued a week after the original order shifted the power to grant permission in respect of High Court recordings from the Registrar General to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q12. Consider the following statements comparing the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Bloomberg v. Zee Entertainment with its 2026 interim order on recordings of judicial proceedings: 1. In the 2024 ruling the Supreme Court held that an ex-parte pre-trial injunction against a publication ought ordinarily to be granted once a prima facie case and the balance of convenience are shown. 2. The 2024 ruling was delivered by a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra. 3. Unlike the 2024 ruling, which concerned restraint on the publication of a news article, the 2026 order left reportage of proceedings by recognised news outlets untouched while restricting the use of official audio-video recordings. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. In the 2024 ruling the Supreme Court held that an ex-parte pre-trial injunction against a publication ought ordinarily to be granted once a prima facie case and the balance of convenience are shown.
  2. The 2024 ruling was delivered by a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
  3. Unlike the 2024 ruling, which concerned restraint on the publication of a news article, the 2026 order left reportage of proceedings by recognised news outlets untouched while restricting the use of official audio-video recordings.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3