Archive · 16 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Tells Lawyer to Seek Video Takedown First
A lawyer said videos of him appearing in court were posted online.
He argued that this broke a Supreme Court order about court videos.
The Supreme Court said he should first ask the websites or online services to remove the videos.
The court said he could return if those services did not act.
The judges also said the lawyer had not claimed that the video was fake or made harmful by artificial intelligence.
The court explained that adding words or statements that were never spoken could make the situation more serious.
The Supreme Court’s earlier order bans unauthorized sharing of recordings of judicial proceedings.
Recognized news organizations may still report what happens in court, but they cannot publish audio or video clips.
The Supreme Court directed a lawyer to first approach online intermediaries to remove court-video clips before seeking judicial intervention.
The lawyer alleged that clips of his appearance in a bail matter were uploaded on social media on August 20.
The court’s July 24 order prohibits unauthorized extraction, posting, uploading, transmission, storage, or hosting of judicial audio-video recordings.
The court said recognized news outlets may report proceedings but cannot publish audio or video clips.
Justice Bagchi called the petition premature and directed the lawyer to pursue remedies under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Who
- A lawyer, the Supreme Court of India, Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Bagchi.
- What
- The Supreme Court directed the lawyer to seek takedown orders from online intermediaries before pursuing judicial intervention over court-video clips.
- When
- The direction was issued on a Wednesday; the disputed clips were reportedly uploaded on August 20, and the relevant court order was issued on July 24.
- Where
- The Supreme Court and online social-media or digital platforms.
- Why
- The lawyer alleged that posting clips of his court appearance violated the Supreme Court’s prohibition on unauthorized publication of judicial recordings.
Petitioner’s Position
Supreme Court’s Position
How to remove the clips
Petitioner’s Position
The lawyer argued that the uploads violated the Supreme Court’s order and sought the court’s intervention, while also asking that the matter remain pending.
Supreme Court’s Position
The court said he must first notify the relevant parties and pursue takedown orders through remedies under the Information Technology Act.
Effect of the uploads
Petitioner’s Position
The lawyer said the videos could hamper his profession and described the uploaders as nuisance-creating anti-social elements.
Supreme Court’s Position
The court noted that he had not alleged that the video was fabricated, created using artificial intelligence, or altered with false words or attributions.
Role of intermediaries
Petitioner’s Position
The lawyer pointed out that the July 24 order did not contain specific directions to intermediaries.
Supreme Court’s Position
Justice Bagchi said the court intentionally issued no separate direction because Section 69 of the Information Technology Act addresses the requirement.
- Initial court order
- Issued July 24; it prohibits unauthorized extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modifying, storing, or hosting of judicial audio-video recordings.
- Disputed upload
- The lawyer said clips of his appearance in a bail matter were uploaded on August 20.
- Court’s direction
- The lawyer was told to first seek takedown orders under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Further court action
- He may return to the Supreme Court if the legal takedown remedy fails.
- News reporting
- A July 31 clarification said recognized news outlets may report proceedings but may not publish audio or video clips.
- Court’s assessment
- Justice Bagchi described the petition as premature.