Supreme Court Advises Lawyer to Utilize IT Act for Video Takedown Request
The Supreme Court of India has declined to entertain a plea from a lawyer seeking action against news portals and social media platforms for distributing a recording of his court appearance. The case, Bhanu Pratap Singh v. Union of India, was brought before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
The Bench advised the lawyer to first pursue remedies available under the Information Technology Act and associated Intermediary Rules. CJI Surya Kant emphasized the importance of first issuing a legal notice to the concerned platforms, referencing the Court’s previous order from July 24, 2026. He suggested that the lawyer inform these entities that their actions may invoke penalties if they fail to comply with the Court’s directives.
The lawyer argued that his video appearance, shared by news outlets on August 28, was in violation of the Court’s July 24 order, which addressed unauthorized use of court proceedings. The lawyer expressed concerns that the video’s circulation could impact his professional reputation.
In response, CJI Kant questioned the lawyer’s hesitance to pursue legal action against those distributing the video. “If you are bold enough to use strong language and make allegations, why hesitate to act?” he queried, labeling the distributors as “antisocial elements.”
The July 24 order was issued in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) against the unauthorized extraction, editing, and distribution of court proceedings on various digital platforms. It mandated that such recordings should not be shared or altered without prior consent from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the concerned High Court. However, it also clarified that this order would not restrict legitimate news reporting of court activities.
More Read
During the session, the Court noted that the lawyer did not allege any fabrication or manipulation of the video. CJI Kant distinguished between the unauthorized commercial use of actual recordings and potential criminal acts involving misrepresentation. “If live-streaming is commercially exploited, it may constitute contempt. But if words are added or attributed falsely, it becomes a criminal act,” he explained.
Justice Bagchi instructed the lawyer to utilize the takedown mechanisms provided under the Information Technology Act. “For content already on social media, approach the service providers and request takedown orders,” he advised.
When the lawyer contended that the distribution was conducted by a reputable news outlet, Justice Bagchi reiterated the necessity of following the statutory takedown process. Should the request be ignored, the lawyer could then return to the Court.
More Read
Finally, CJI Kant addressed concerns about the absence of explicit directives against the platforms in the July 24 order. “Any violation of the Court’s directives is an act in personam. Follow the legal process. If it fails, come back to us,” he asserted.
