New Delhi, Aug 5 (IANS) The Supreme Court has clarified that its recent interim order regulating the use of audio and video recordings of court proceedings does not impose a blanket prohibition on reportage by recognised news organisations, while reiterating that such outlets cannot use audio or video clips of judicial proceedings in their coverage.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the clarification after observing that “some confusion persists” regarding paragraph 11 of its July 24 interim order passed in a petition seeking implementation of a uniform framework for live streaming and recording of court proceedings across the country.
Clarifying the scope of its earlier directions, the CJI-led Bench said: “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.”
“Such outlets may, therefore, 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,” it added.
I”In sum, while news outlets may continue to report on the court proceedings, they shall nonetheless remain bound by the restrictions set out in paragraph 10.”
Accordingly, the top court said that paragraph 11 of its July 24 order “stands clarified to that extent”.
The CJI Surya Kant-led Bench also granted four weeks’ time to the respondents to file their counter affidavits and posted the matter for further hearing on September 18.
Earlier, on July 24, the Supreme Court had directed that audio and video recordings of judicial proceedings cannot be extracted, disseminated, monetised, posted, re-posted, uploaded, transmitted, modified, stored, or hosted on social media or any other digital platform without prior permission of the Secretary General of the apex court or the Registrar Generals of the respective High Courts.
The interim direction was passed while issuing notice on the writ petition and impleading all High Courts, along with major social media intermediaries and technology platforms, as parties to the proceedings.
The apex court had also directed the Union government to place before it a proposal, formulated through the nodal Ministries, to give effect to the reliefs sought in the petition, while asking all High Courts to submit status reports on the adoption of the Model Rules for live streaming and recording of court proceedings, including the feasibility of continuous and uninterrupted live streaming.
–IANS
pds/vd
About the Author
