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

The apex court clarified that while the unauthorised sharing of live‑streamed court proceedings constitutes contempt, inserting false statements or misattributing remarks to judges or lawyers turns the violation into a criminal offence. The observation was made by a three‑judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana present, during a hearing on a petition filed by a lawyer whose courtroom video had been posted online.

The bench referred to orders issued on July 24 and July 31, 2026, which barred the extraction, dissemination, monetisation, and hosting of raw or edited audio‑video recordings of Supreme Court hearings without prior permission from the Secretary General or the relevant High Court registrars. The petitioner argued that the online circulation of his appearance in a bail matter caused reputational damage. The court reiterated that merely posting livestreamed footage may attract contempt, but adding words never spoken or falsely attributing comments to the bench constitutes a more serious, criminally punishable act.

The case highlights the tension between media coverage of judicial proceedings and the protection of the court’s integrity. Justice Bagchi advised the petitioner to seek takedown orders under the Information Technology Act before returning to the court, a step the lawyer ultimately chose not to pursue. The ruling underscores the need for stricter compliance by digital platforms and news portals to prevent manipulation of court content, aiming to safeguard both the judiciary’s reputation and the rights of individuals appearing before it.