കോടതി നടപടികളുടെ തത്സമയ സംപ്രേഷണം തടയില്ലെന്ന് സുപ്രീം കോടതി വ്യക്തമാക്കി. എന്നാൽ, വീഡിയോ ക്ലിപ്പുകൾ വാണിജ്യ ആവശ്യങ്ങൾക്കും വ്യക്തിപരമായ പ്രചാരണത്തിനും ദുരുപയോഗം ചെയ്യുന്നത് ആശങ്കാജനകമാണെന്ന് കോടതി ചൂണ്ടിക്കാട്ടി. ഇത് സ്ഥാപനത്തിന്റെ അന്തസ്സിനെ ബാധിക്കുന്നുവെന്ന് നിരീക്ഷിച്ച കോടതി, ഇതുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട മാർഗ്ഗനിർദ്ദേശങ്ങൾ ഉടൻ പുറപ്പെടുവിക്കുമെന്ന് അറിയിച്ചു.
The Supreme Court on Friday said there was "no question of gagging anything" or restricting the live-streaming of court proceedings, even as it raised concerns over the misuse of hearing videos for monetisation, advertising and misrepresentation. The court said some people were extracting clips for personal promotion and commercial gain, causing harm to the institution.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations while hearing a plea seeking restraint on the unauthorised extraction and monetisation of videos of court proceedings. It gave the Centre two weeks to file its reply and suggestions based on inputs received from different high courts, and said it would issue the necessary guidelines.
Expressing its displeasure, the bench told advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who admitted that he shares video clips on social media, "You have no idea the damage caused to the Bar and Bench and the institution as a whole." Nedumpara said he did not want restrictive live-streaming of court proceedings and also opposed any curbs on sharing video clips. He submitted, "This court should be open. In the United States and the United Kingdom, there is no restriction. Judges should not be afraid of criticism, which will always be there."
Responding to him, CJI Kant said, "All of us agree that there is no question of gagging anything. There is no question of restricting live-streaming." He added, "But this kind of misuse, as you have rightly pointed out... some people are extracting recordings for personal promotion, monetisation, advertising and misrepresentation. These are our areas of concern."
The bench said the earlier directions restraining YouTube channels from sharing court clips would remain in force till further orders. It ordered that suggestions received from parties and other stakeholders be forwarded to the office of the Solicitor General of India, and granted time for a counter-affidavit along with a proposal prepared after considering suggestions received so far from different high courts.
Justice Bagchi said, "First, the Bar Council of India prohibits lawyers from canvassing for professional gain. Today, much of the uploading of court proceedings is being done for personal promotion and professional gain. It is a very serious issue." He also said the judiciary was arranging sufficient storage space, whether on the cloud or otherwise, to preserve data relating to live-streamed proceedings.
He said the material could be made available through appropriate mechanisms, including RTI, but added that technological limitations meant there was no effective regulation to stop people from extracting portions of live-streamed proceedings, uploading them on personal profiles and using them to canvass for professional benefits. "This is completely contrary to the principles governing advocacy and the legal profession," he said.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing in the matter, said distorted clips of court hearings were being uploaded on social media with misleading captions, which was very offensive. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that despite court orders, some YouTube channels were still uploading courtroom proceedings. "I do not think there should be any opposition to directing those YouTube channels, which are still uploading court proceedings, to stop doing so," he said.
CJI Kant said there was commercial exploitation of court proceedings, which were meant for public viewing, public understanding and to better inform people about what happened in court. "Some channels are exploiting these proceedings commercially. Do you think we will not prohibit them? We are only here to lay down guidelines that court proceedings are not meant for commercial exploitation," he said. He added that anything meant for public good should not be allowed to be commercially exploited, as that would defeat its very purpose.
The bench also said misquoting or misrepresenting judges was not the purpose of live-streaming, and that reporting had to be fair and accurate. The court made it clear that while live-streaming of proceedings would continue, it was looking to frame guidelines to address commercial exploitation, misleading clips and other misuse.