SC: Fake quotes in court clips cross line from contempt into crime
Supreme Court says unauthorised sharing of livestreamed hearings is contempt, but fabricated or misattributed judicial remarks amount to criminal conduct.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 16, 2026) drew a distinction between unauthorised circulation of livestreamed court proceedings and clips that fabricate or misattribute remarks, holding that the latter crosses from contempt into criminal conduct.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made the observation while hearing a petition by a lawyer who said a video of his court appearance had been circulated online by portals and social media platforms, causing him reputational harm in his practice.
The petitioner pointed to Supreme Court orders of July 24 and July 31 that barred online use of raw or edited audio and video clippings of judicial hearings. The July 24 interim direction prohibited extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing or hosting of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without prior permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrars General of the jurisdictional High Courts.
A clarification issued on July 31 stated that the earlier order was not a blanket prohibition on court coverage by recognised media outlets, provided audio or video clips of the proceedings were not used.
The Bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, was addressing the online representation of oral remarks made during hearings. It said falsely imputing statements as part of oral submissions by lawyers was equally wrong.
The Chief Justice questioned the basis of the lawyer's grievance, noting that the allegation did not claim the circulated video was fabricated or that artificial intelligence had been used to cause him harm. He reminded the petitioner that he had appeared in open court, telling him there was no need to hide and that he should be brave.
The court observed that merely putting out livestreamed videos online, possibly for commercial exploitation, could attract contempt. A more serious situation would arise if words never spoken were added or remarks were falsely attributed to the Bench or to lawyers, which would amount to criminal activity and require a serious view.
Justice Bagchi advised the petitioner to first approach authorities under the Information Technology Act for orders directing service providers to take down the videos. He said the petitioner should exhaust statutory remedies and return to the court only if takedown orders were not complied with.
The petitioner subsequently withdrew the petition to pursue remedies under the relevant law.