Supreme Court says falsely quoting judges in barred online court clips crosses over from contempt to crime

The Supreme Court clarified on Wednesday (September 16, 2026) that while unauthorised distribution of live-streamed proceedings constitutes contempt, circulating clips featuring false insertions or misattributed judicial remarks graduates the violation into criminal conduct.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was referring to online representation of oral remarks made during court proceedings.

The court said falsely imputing statements as part of oral submissions made by lawyers in court was also wrong.

The Bench was hearing a petition filed by a lawyer who complained that a video of his appearance in court was circulated online by portals and social media sites in violation of specific Supreme Court orders on July 24 and July 31, which had barred the online use of raw or edited audio and video clippings of judicial hearings.

The lawyer said the circulation of the video had caused him reputational harm while practising his profession.

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.

A week later, on July 31, the apex court issued a clarification stating that its July 24 order did not constitute a blanket prohibition on court coverage by recognised media outlets, provided audio or video clips of the proceedings were not utilised.

‘Be brave’: CJI to lawyer

The petitioner-lawyer said he was only making an appearance in his professional capacity in a bail matter.

The Chief Justice reminded him that he had appeared in open court. “Why do you want to hide? You should be brave enough,” the CJI told the legal practitioner.

Questioning the basis of the lawyer’s grievance, the CJI said his allegation did not include that the video circulated online was fabricated or AI was used to cause him harm.

The court said mere online utilisation of livestreamed videos, possibly for commercial exploitation, attracts contempt. However, far more serious would be the adding words never spoken or falsely attributing remarks to the Bench or the lawyers.

“Assuming a channel is putting out videos [of court proceedings], they might be committing contempt. But if they are adding something that you have not spoken, or they attribute something to the Bench that we had never said… That would be a more offending situation because then they are indulging in a criminal activity. That will require a serious view,” Chief Justice Kant addressed the counsel on the petitioner side.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench along with Justice V. Mohana, advised the petitioner to move the authorities under the Information Technology (IT) Act for an order to service providers to ‘takedown’ the videos.

“First take the necessary steps for takedown orders under the IT Act. If the takedown orders are not complied with, then you come to us. Exhaust your statutory remedies first,” Justice Bagchi said.

The petitioner withdrew his petition to approach authorities under the relevant law.