HC puts stop to livestreaming of court videos without permission

The High Court on Tuesday issued an order prohibiting media organisations and individuals from sharing videos of court proceedings without authorisation.

The order was issued in response to a petition filed by the Advocates’ Association Bengaluru (AAB) that sought a direction to the central government to take appropriate measures to prevent individuals, video creators, and media agencies from illegally using court proceedings from live streamed videos.

The order, passed by a single judge bench headed by Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, stated, “Till next date, respondent R6 to R8 [YouTube, Facebook, and X] are restrained from sharing live streamed videos and R9 to R13 [some media agencies] are restrained from displaying the videos on their channels. They (R6 to R8) are directed to delete the videos live streamed on channels posted in violation of rules.”

During the hearing, the court noted that a rule prohibiting such videos is already in place. The HC Registry also informed the bench about displaying a disclaimer to discourage the use of the video.

The petition was filed shortly after two viral video clips of Justice V Srishananda surfaced on social media, in which he was seen making objectionable remarks.

The petitioners argue that the actions of video makers and miscreants who misuse live broadcasting are highly arbitrary, illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

Recently, the Supreme Court has directed the Registrar General of the HC to submit a report on this case. The matter is scheduled for hearing on Wednesday.

Activists have deemed the order a blow to transparency from the constitutional court. The Campaign Against Hate Speech, Karnataka, initiated an open letter to the Chief Justice of India on Saturday demanding appropriate action be immediately taken against Justice V Srishananda for violating his oath. The letter further demanded that live coverage of all court halls should continue to ensure transparency and accountability of judicial actions.

“The AAB has baselessly demanded that the live streaming be stopped so as to not bring disrepute to the institution of judiciary.

Instead of demanding accountability for his hateful remarks, they have alleged that the circulation of the video of the live stream will “totally damage the image in public of courts.
In fact, the CJI has noted that “social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings.”

Despite the immunity offered by the Protection of Judges Act 1986, judges should not violate existing provisions of the law and the Constitution but in fact should be upholding them through conduct which is unimpeachable in its fidelity to constitutional morality,” the letter stated.