CJI flags ‘misuse’ of live-streamed court proceedings on social media

The debate over live-streaming court proceedings strikes at the heart of open justice and judicial transparency. The Supreme Court initiated live-streaming to make the judicial process accessible to the common citizen, fulfilling the mandate of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) which implicitly includes the right to know and access justice. This move aimed to demystify court procedures and hold the judiciary accountable to the public. However, the CJI's concerns highlight the tension between transparency and the integrity of the judicial process. When judges' oral remarks—often made to test arguments rather than state final positions—are clipped out of context, it can undermine public trust and the perceived impartiality of the judiciary. This situation invokes the concept of Contempt of Court, specifically 'scandalizing the court', which occurs when actions lower the court's authority or interfere with the administration of justice. The challenge for the UPSC aspirant is to analyze how the judiciary balances the need for an open court system, essential in a democracy, with protecting itself from malicious misrepresentation in the digital age.

This issue presents a classic governance challenge: regulating new technologies without stifling their democratic benefits. The Supreme Court's July 24 interim order barring unauthorized dissemination and monetization of court clips is an attempt to establish regulatory boundaries on digital platforms. The proposed protocol for accessing court archives is a step towards structured governance of judicial data. This reflects a broader need for institutions to adapt their communication strategies to the realities of social media, where misinformation can spread rapidly. It also touches upon the responsibilities of the media and citizens. While the media enjoys freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including contempt of court. The governance question here is how to design a regulatory framework that prevents the commercial exploitation and malicious editing of public judicial records without infringing on the legitimate rights of journalists and citizens to report on and discuss court proceedings, thereby maintaining the balance between accountability and institutional integrity.

The misuse of out-of-context video clips on social media poses a significant challenge related to internal security, specifically concerning the role of media and social networks in shaping public perception and potentially inciting unrest. As the article noted, a misconstrued remark led to public furore and protests. This exemplifies how digital platforms can be weaponized with 'malicious intent' to mislead the youth and disrupt societal harmony. The rapid circulation of unverified or manipulated content (deepfakes or deceptively edited clips) can lead to law and order problems, creating flashpoints based on misinformation. The state's response involves regulating digital spaces, which requires a careful approach to avoid censorship while mitigating the risks of organized campaigns that seek to destabilize institutions. Aspirants should connect this to the broader discourse on regulating social media intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the challenges of combating misinformation and disinformation in a highly connected society, viewing it as a modern threat vector.