Courtroom Clips Face Supreme Court Scrutiny as Access and Accuracy Collide

For Tanisha Som, a 24-year-old law student in Assam, watching live-streamed court proceedings wasn’t just entertainment—it was inspiration. "Until then, much of what I knew about courtrooms came from Bollywood movies," she recalls. "Live-streamed proceedings gave me a window into how courts actually function." That window, however, is now partly shuttered.

The Rise of Digital Courtrooms

Live-streaming entered India’s judicial mainstream nearly a decade ago, championed by advocates like Swapnil Tripathi. His 2018 petition led to a landmark ruling that recognized live-streaming as part of the right to access justice. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," wrote Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, capturing the spirit of openness.

By March 2026, live-streaming was operational in 11 High Courts. The Supreme Court’s YouTube channel grew to over 267,000 subscribers. Major Constitution Bench hearings became accessible to anyone with an internet connection—democratizing what was once confined to physical courtrooms.

The Double-Edged Sword of Visibility

But visibility brought complications. Clips of heated exchanges, sensitive cases, or controversial remarks began circulating on social media, often stripped of context. In September 2024, videos of Karnataka High Court Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda referring to a Muslim-dominated locality as "Pakistan" and making a sexist remark sparked online furor.

Journalist Harshita Grover petitioned the Supreme Court, pointing out that distorted clips risked public misunderstanding. On July 24, the court responded with an interim order barring the use of audio or video clips from proceedings without prior permission from court registrars.

"Isolated excerpts risk trivializing the administration of justice," warned a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

Balancing Act: Transparency vs. Misinformation

The court clarified that "recognized news outlets" could still report on proceedings—but without using clips. Yet it didn’t define which outlets qualify, leaving independent journalists in limbo.

Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convener of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, worries about arbitrariness. "Requiring ordinary citizens to seek permission leaves room for arbitrariness," she says. She suggests expanding official archiving instead: "A complete, official record acts as a deterrent."

Others, like legal scholar Alok Prasanna Kumar, note the generational shift in news consumption. A 2026 Reuters Institute report found 39% of 18–24-year-olds use social media as their main news source—up from 21% in 2015. "It’s a bit like trying to stop the wind from blowing," Kumar says.

What Comes Next?

The court has added High Courts and social media intermediaries—including Meta, LinkedIn, and X Corp—to the proceedings. Stakeholders await September’s hearing, which may shape how justice is seen and shared.

For now, Tanisha Som—soon to graduate and don the black robe she once dreamed of—remains cautious. "The judiciary wields enormous power over our lives," she says. "I would rather see what happened and decide for myself."