Supreme Court Orders MeitY to Curb Unauthorized Court Clip Uploads
- SC bench led by CJI Surya Kant directed MeitY to include anti-piracy provisions in its policy.
- The court is addressing the unauthorized extraction and monetization of judicial proceedings.
- A July 24 order already prohibits the unauthorized sharing of court video recordings.
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi warned that using mobile phones to record hearings constitutes contempt.
- The matter is set for further hearing after the Diwali break.
The court instructed the ministry to ensure that action is taken against the unauthorized uploading of audio-video clips from court proceedings.
This directive requires the ministry to incorporate necessary measures into its proposed policy to take action against individuals who fail to comply with the court's directions. The court is acting to address the unauthorized dissemination of digital content from judicial hearings.
MeitY formulating policy to address courtroom video misuse
The Supreme Court is evaluating this policy, which focuses on the use of watermarks and limiting the ability to extract clips. The Supreme Court has requested that the government include penalties for the misuse of live-streamed court videos.
The court has specifically ordered the ministry to update its policy to include measures against breaches involving unauthorized clips. This directive aims to enforce restrictions on the unauthorized use of court proceedings and calls for action against those who violate these rules. The court is seeking more effective enforcement mechanisms for the existing restrictions on courtroom clips.
The ministry must ensure enforcement measures against violations of earlier interim orders regarding the unauthorized circulation of court videos are incorporated into the policy. The court has ordered the ministry to take action against the unauthorized circulation of court proceedings. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that suggestions on how to tackle the unauthorized circulation of courtroom videos have been received from various High Courts, lawyers, and stakeholders and placed before the court's registry.
Existing July 24 order prohibits unauthorized dissemination
A previous interim order also banned the unapproved utilization or distribution of live-streamed court proceedings on digital platforms and social media absent prior consent.
Recognized news organizations are not prohibited from reporting on court hearings. Nevertheless, these platforms are still required to adhere to current limitations concerning the distribution of audio or video recordings of proceedings.
Justice Bagchi warns of contempt for mobile recordings
Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated that the court is developing administrative safeguards, including arrangements to prevent the extraction of video feeds from court-specific YouTube channels. Administrative steps are currently underway to prevent the extraction of clips from the YouTube channels of High Courts.
YouTubers wishing to use clips of court proceedings must obtain permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.
Justice Bagchi warned that using secondary devices like mobile phones to record proceedings constitutes contempt of court.
Debate over monetization and public service
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that YouTubers are not performing a public service but are instead monetizing the content they publish.
In response, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that YouTubers and legal commentators ought to be allowed to utilize segments of official clips without needing prior authorization. He cited the open justice principles established in the Swapnil Tripathi case to support his argument.
The bench reiterated that even authenticated footage of court proceedings cannot be commercialized without approval. This follows a rider on commercial exploitation included in their earlier interim order.
The court stated it would examine the concerns raised by Bhushan regarding the requirement for prior permission for video extraction in due course.
Proposed technical solutions for authentication
Advocate Prashant Bhushan suggested that the court maintain an official, authenticated repository of proceedings featuring watermarks and cryptographic signatures.
This system allows the public to extract clips only from that source. It also enables the public to authenticate genuine footage against manipulated versions.
Next steps in Harshita Grover v. Union of India
Union of India & Ors. The proceedings focused on the unauthorized extraction and monetization of court hearing videos.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that there have been breaches of the directives against the unauthorized circulation of courtroom videos. He requested the court to consider issuing directions for the take-down of content in instances where earlier orders are breached.
Mehta stated that suggestions received regarding the issue have been forwarded to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. He requested that the matter be listed for hearing after the Diwali break.
Frequently Asked Questions
Add NewsPulse Time as a preferred source on Google