Live broadcast meetings are not intended for commercial gain, the Supreme Court reiterates
On July 31, the Supreme Court clarified that reputable news media will be able to continue to report on court proceedings without “exploiting” audio and video clips from court proceedings. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 9, 2026) stood by its decision to ban the unauthorized use and circulation of live streaming of court proceedings on social media and digital platforms, saying that “anything meant for public welfare” cannot be commercially “exploited” for personal gain.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the express ban did not constitute a gag or restriction on watching live proceedings or court reporting.
“Court proceedings are simply not meant for commercial use. Anything that is meant for public good should not be used for money,” the Chief Justice said.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the bench, pointed out that court proceedings were broadcast live 24/7 in the UK and US, but access was subject to strict guidelines against commercialisation.
“The first bar imposed by the Bar Council of India is that a lawyer will not pursue professional gains. Today, recording and promotion is done for personal gain and it is very serious. We have noticed that lawyers are recording and editing these videos for their own promotional purposes… Such actions are completely inimical to advocacy and the legal profession,” Justice Bagchi said.
The court gave the parties and other interested parties time to file submissions along with draft guidelines against the commercialization of live-streamed proceedings.
On July 31, the Supreme Court clarified that reputable news media will be able to continue to report on court proceedings without “exploiting” audio and video clips from court proceedings.
On July 24, the court issued an interim order prohibiting the exploitation, dissemination, monetization, publication, re-publication, recording, transmission, editing, storage or hosting of the audio-video recording(s) of the court proceedings on social media or any other digital platforms without the prior permission of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court or the Chief Registrars of the respective High Courts.
The petition filed by two activists, Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’souza, criticized the July 24 order as a reversal of the “principle of open justice” upheld by the Supreme Court itself in a number of judgments.
Published – 9 Oct 2026 21:09 IST