Live-streaming debate: Supreme Court must prevent sensationalism

Yesterday marked four years since the Supreme Court’s judgment ordering the live-streaming of its proceedings. Justice DY Chandrachud (as he then was), echoing Justice Louis Brandeis, observed that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”, and emphasised the importance of opening the Court’s doors to the public, allowing every citizen to witness its working firsthand.

The judgment was a welcome move aimed at achieving several goals: making the Supreme Court an ‘open court’ in both spirit and practice; upholding the public’s right to know and enabling citizens to understand the manner of judicial decision-making; reducing reliance on second-hand narratives and giving a primary account of judicial hearings; promoting education and research; removing physical barriers and reducing the need for litigants to travel to courts to observe proceedings; and also, enhancing accountability of judicial institutions. In essence, the Court believed live-streaming would integrate the judiciary into the daily lives of citizens.

The initiative has since been embraced by several High Courts, where the high viewership numbers on official channels confirmed that citizens are indeed interested in court proceedings. For instance, the live-streamed hearings in the Hijab case at the Karnataka High Court attracted significant attention, reflecting widespread public engagement.

No broadcasting for commercial purposes

During the hearings in the live-streaming case, concerns were raised regarding the potential misuse of video footage. The Court was cognisant of these concerns, and accordingly, issued detailed guidelines to regulate live-streaming and its dissemination. Notably, in the model guidelines issued with the judgment, the Court prohibited the use of recording or broadcast for commercial purposes and also the re-use of the video footage without prior written permission of the Registry.

Subsequently, the E-Committee of the Supreme Court also issued Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, as per which no person/entity unless authorised can share or disseminate live-streamed proceedings. According to Rule 9.2 (iv), the Court may permit the use of authorised recording for the purposes of disseminating news or for training, academic and educational purposes. However, such recordings cannot be further edited or processed and should not be used for commercial or promotional purposes.

Unfortunately, these guidelines have been ignored and entities have used live-streamed clips for commercial gain.

Rise of sensational court reporting

In the last two years, there has been a marked increase in sensational court reporting. Several news portals and YouTube channels upload snippets of live-streamed court videos, often coupled with eye-catching thumbnails and titles, but devoid of proper context. Examples include titles such as: ‘Viral Video: MP High Court में Justice Vivek Agarwal और Lawyer के बीच जोरदार बहस’; ‘Patna High Court के Justice Sandeep Kumar ने Bulldozer Action पर Police को खूब धोया; ‘Patna High Court के जज Rajeev Ranjan Prasad का धमाकेदार खुलासा..जरा खुद सुनिए'.

These platforms use flashy titles to attract more views, thereby commercialising the Court’s live-streaming initiative. Often, the videos frame the Court as a battleground between state machinery and the judiciary, with confrontational rhetoric to stoke interest. For instance, during the hearings in the marriage equality case, several videos appeared with confrontational titles/thumbnails like ‘Mr. Solicitor we are in charge here’, ‘CJI snubs SG’ etc.

A more recent example from the RG Kar Hospital case in Kolkata also highlights the attempt to sensationalise court proceedings. Leading news agencies posted YouTube videos titled ‘Solicitor General Lashes Out At Kapil Sibal'; ‘Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Slams Bengal Government Counsel Kapil Sibal For Laughing'; ‘CJI Rips into Sibal Plea, "What You've Done Sibal?’ These titles aimed to draw attention by portraying a confrontational narrative, when in fact, courtroom remarks are often judicial observations intended to clarify arguments.

This misleading portrayal discredits both the judiciary and the bar. Two cases illustrate this: First, in the RG Kar Hospital case, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal became the target of online abuse, with a doctored video of him laughing during the hearing used to label him as insensitive. Similarly, during the marriage equality case, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was subjected to a similar online campaign. Such sensationalised content, amplified through YouTube and other channels, directly contravenes the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

The need for regulation

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court rejected a plea seeking to regulate live-streaming of proceedings, citing concerns over misuse by social media users. Rejecting the plea, the Chief Justice remarked,

“The answer to sunlight is more sunlight, not to suppress what happens in the courts because this is a very important reminder to everyone.”

These remarks are commendable, as live-streaming has indeed heightened judicial scrutiny, making judges more conscious of their conduct. In recent years, problematic comments by judges have been flagged only because of live-streaming, ensuring greater accountability.

However, while the benefits are clear, the Court must also recognise the potential for misuse. Sensationalising court proceedings for commercial gain not only misrepresents the judiciary but also violates the spirit of the live-streaming judgment, which aimed to reduce misinformation and foster a more informed public understanding of the judicial process. As the judgment itself noted,

“Live-streaming of courtroom proceedings will reduce the public’s reliance on second-hand narratives to obtain information about important judgments of the Court and the course of judicial hearings. Society will be able to view court proceedings first hand and form reasoned and educated opinions about the functioning of courts. This will help reduce misinformation and misunderstanding about the judicial process.”

Unfortunately, the rise of sensational reporting through edited video clips contradicts these goals, spreading misinformation rather than reducing it. A viable solution would be to enforce the Court's existing guidelines more rigorously, thereby deterring the use of live-streaming content for commercial or narrative-driven purposes.

Swapnil Tripathi is an Advocate and a DPhil (in Law) Student, University of Oxford. He tweets at S_Tripathi07.

Note: It was on Swapnil Tripathi's PIL that the Supreme Court first agreed to allow the live-streaming of cases of Constitutional importance that take place in the Court of the Chief Justice of India.