The Supreme Court on Friday (October 9, 2026) stood firm by its decision to ban the unauthorised use and circulation of livestreamed judicial proceedings on social media and digital platforms, saying “anything meant for public good” cannot be “exploited” commercially for personal gain.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the explicit bar did not amount to a gag or restriction on viewing live-streamed proceedings or court reportage.
“Court proceedings are simply not meant for commercial exploitation. Anything meant for public good should not be exploited for money,” the Chief Justice said.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench, pointed out that court proceedings are live-streamed 24x7 in the United Kingdom and the United States, but the access was subject to strict guidelines against commercialisation.
“The first bar imposed by the Bar Council of India is that a lawyer will not canvas for professional gains. Today, uploading and promotion for personal gain is being done, and it is very serious. We notice that lawyers upload and canvas these videos for their own promotional purposes… Such actions are completely adverse to advocacy and the legal profession,” Justice Bagchi said.
The court gave the parties and other stakeholders time to file pleadings, along with suggestions for guidelines against commercialisation of live-streamed proceedings.
The Supreme Court had clarified on July 31 that recognised news outlets would be able to continue reporting on court proceedings without “utilising” audio and video clippings of judicial hearings.
On July 24, the court had passed an interim direction prohibiting extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting of the audio-video recording(s) of judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrars General of the jurisdictional High Courts.
An application filed by two activists, Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’souza, had criticised the July 24 order as a reversal of the ‘principle of open justice’ upheld by the apex court itself in a plethora of judgments.