Supreme Court judge Justice B.R. Gavai, slated to become the next Chief Justice of India, has voiced serious reservations, highlighting the potential to undermine the integrity of judicial processes. “These clips, when taken out of context, can lead to misinformation, misinterpretation of judicial discussions, and inaccurate reporting,” he said at an event.
Former Bombay High Court judge Gautam Patel told Mint that live-streaming of court proceedings “trivializes a judge’s work”. He flagged a lack of control over viewers on platforms like YouTube, contrasting it with virtual or hybrid hearings where attendees can be traced through their IP addresses.
“We do serious work that affects individuals, corporates…,” Justice Patel said. “The clips that are circulated are part of long hearings; there is something taken out of context for shock value. It has become a real menace.”
Once uploaded, there is no way to control the manner in which it is replicated, so it does more harm than good, he said. “Unless there is some law governing live streaming or changes in technology for live streaming, it should altogether be stopped.”
Also read | From Likes to Live: Digital influencers take baby steps into the real world
The Supreme Court started live telecasts of court proceedings as part of the right to access justice under Article 21 of the Constitution, aiming to enhance transparency and public confidence. The top court’s e-Committee, under the leadership of then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, issued model guidelines that only authorized entities can record or share proceedings, and unauthorized use is punishable under copyright, IT, and contempt laws. Enforcement, however, remains a challenge.
A judge who refused to be identified said the viral nature of these clips could exert undue pressure on the judiciary, potentially compromising its independence and impartiality. “Judges like to ask questions and engage in discussions with lawyers. Such scrutiny may make judges conscious,” he said.
Hamza Lakdawala, a lawyer practising in the Bombay High Court, also expressed concerns. “Virtual hearings are a natural extension as we have open courts. However, live streaming could have a chilling effect on lawyers,” he said, suggesting lawyers might “mellow down or play to the gallery”.
He advocated alternative solutions, such as allowing virtual hearing access via platforms such as Zoom and Webex and sharing archived transcripts and audio recordings for educational purposes. “People can attend court proceedings; they can come to court and attend hearings,” he said, emphasizing that these measures do not restrict access entirely.
Also read | The secret struggle behind India’s influencer explosion
Any unauthorized reproduction, dissemination or modification of such content—absent a legitimate defence such as fair use—constitutes an actionable violation of copyright law, permitting courts to seek injunctive relief, damages, and criminal prosecution of infringers. Courts may also invoke takedown mechanisms provided under the IT Act to prevent the proliferation of unauthorized content.
Some lawyers see live-streaming as a significant step toward transparency and public engagement with the legal system.
There should be “clear, enforceable guidelines” to regulate the use and reproduction of court proceedings, said Tushar Kumar, an advocate in the Supreme Court. “A prudent regulatory framework could incorporate delayed broadcasting of live proceedings, allowing courts a window to redact sensitive portions or pre-empt the risk of misrepresentation.”
He added that courts may also mandate standardized disclaimers accompanying all live streams, clarifying that isolated clips do not reflect the entirety of judicial discourse. Kumar also advocated “binding content moderation directives for social media platforms”.
Content creators back live-streaming of court cases and virtual hearings, citing public good.
Read this | Blue collar influencers: An emerging force but their brands are yet to catch fire
“Hybrid court hearings have made access to the judicial system easy, and it should not be undone,” according to lawyer Anwesh Panigrahi, co-founder of Deadly Law, a social media channel for legal news and information. He cited how virtual hearings of the Cuttack High Court have cut down “unnecessary expenditure” for litigants.
While acknowledging that content is, at times, sensationalized, he said, “People don’t want to consume this information in a boring or preachy way. They prefer entertaining memes, so legal content in that sense is important.”
To give perspective, in 2024 alone, close to 210 thousand posts related to legal content were seen on Instagram from India, which saw engagement from over 1.1 billion users, according to data furnished by Qoruz, an influencer marketing tech platform.
And while some legal experts call for doing away with live-streaming of proceedings, Panigrahi flagged that the space for content creators is already shrinking. “Our freedom of speech has already been restricted to some extent due to the fear that if we offend any particular set of people, they will come after us heavily,” he said. “So instead of freely expressing, content creators are practising conditional speech.”
According to Anirudh Sridharan, CEO of HashFame, a creator networking platform, a lot of creators are even going back to their old content on platforms, including Facebook, to “delete the older posts years ago when everything was unfiltered. They want to ensure that their past content or anything that they post from further on does not affect their work or personal lives”.
And read | How influencers can stay out of legal trouble
Sridharan, however, said that social media platforms get away lightly. “Compared to other countries, intermediary liability is very limited in India,” he said, adding that when something goes wrong, the platforms aren’t held accountable as much and they often blame it on algorithms.
