NEW DELHI, Aug 5: The Supreme Court has clarified that its recent interim order restricting the uploading and sharing of audio and video recordings of court proceedings does not prevent recognised news organisations from reporting on judicial hearings.
The clarification came after the apex court observed that “some confusion persists” regarding its July 24 interim order, which prohibited the extraction, dissemination and uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior approval from the court administration.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said the restriction applies only to the use of audio and video recordings and should not be interpreted as a blanket ban on media coverage of court proceedings.
“It appears, however, that some confusion persists in respect of paragraph 11 of the earlier order, which this court deems necessary to clarify. The said paragraph makes it clear that the order is not to be construed as imposing a blanket prohibition on the reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets,” the Bench observed in its order dated July 31.
The court said recognised media organisations are free to report on judicial proceedings and inform the public about legal developments and court decisions. However, they cannot use audio or video clips of court proceedings in their reports without prior permission.
“Such outlets may continue to report on the proceedings and inform the general public of legal developments and judicial pronouncements, save that audio or video clips of the court proceedings shall not be utilised in the course of such reportage,” the Bench said.
The court reiterated that news organisations remain bound by the restrictions laid down in paragraph 10 of its July 24 order.
“As an interim measure, there shall be no extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting or uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of this Court or the Registrar General of the jurisdictional High Courts,” the earlier order had stated.
The Supreme Court had also issued notices to the Centre and other respondents, including several social media platforms, seeking their responses to a petition filed by journalist Harshita Grover.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the issues raised in the plea were of considerable public importance.
The matter remains pending before the apex court.
