Fetter on open circulation of livestreamed proceedings reverses open justice system, activists tell SC

Published 31 July 2026 · india

Two activists have opposed a Supreme Court order barring the circulation of livestreamed proceedings on social media and digital platforms as a reversal of the

Two activists have opposed a Supreme Court order barring the circulation of livestreamed proceedings on social media and digital platforms as a reversal of the ‘principle of open justice’ upheld by the apex court itself in a plethora of judgments The application filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’Souza, said the July 24 order veers away from the principle of open courts, which is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of fair, just and reasonable procedure. “Open access to justice ensures that the judicial process remains answerable to the public and guards against arbitrariness,” the application argued.

The intervening application of the activists would be put forth for consideration on July 31 (Friday) before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant which had passed the interim order in a petition filed by Harshita Grover. The order had prohibited the extraction, modification, dissemination, posting, reposting, uploading, recording, or monetisation of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on any social media or digital platform without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court and Registrar General of the State High Courts. The apex court had reasoned that the unregulated circulation of livestreamed court proceedings made judges, advocates, and litigants vulnerable to trolling and reputational harm while eroding public confidence in the judicial system.

‘Provide authorised recordings to prevent misuse’ The applicant-activists said the concern of intentional misuse/misdepiction sought to be addressed could be more precisely met by providing an authorised live-stream and audio-video recording of court proceedings and by defining the terms and conditions of re-use, sharing and dissemination of the recordings and livestream, rather than restricting these activities based on the nature of the user. “The safeguards should be such that they protect fair and accurate representation, including sharing and dissemination of proceedings that are already open to public view,” the application said. Arguing that the issue warranted wider engagement and inputs from various stakeholders, the application said the July 24 order has placed over-reaching restrictions on the sharing and dissemination of audio-visual recording of court proceedings “without drawing a distinction between fair and accurate representation of the proceedings done in good faith versus malicious and malafide distortion of the audio-visual recordings including through morphed clips, misleading captions, misdepiction”.