Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition seeking to regulate the misuse of live-streamed court proceedings on social media platforms and ensure compliance with the Madhya Pradesh Live-Streaming and Recording Rules for Court Proceedings, 2021 (the Rules), a Division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., restrained respondents 5 to 7, along with all social media platforms and the general public, from editing or sharing live-streamed videos in any manner that violates Rule 11(b) of the Rules and also directed the removal of all unauthorized content currently uploaded on social media.
In the instant matter, the petitioner requested (i) to prevent all social media, individuals, media agencies, and the general public from editing, morphing, or illegally using or sharing live-streamed videos of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (ii) issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents (Nos. 1-4) to delete all live-streamed court videos, clips, shorts, and memes unauthorizedly created and available on social media, and to report compliance to the Court, (iii) issuance of writ of mandamus directing criminal proceedings against respondents Nos. 5-7, as well as any others violating the Rules, (iv) issuance of writ of mandamus to initiate an inquiry into the revenue generated by respondents 5-7 from unauthorized use of live-streamed proceedings and to recover such revenue, (v) issuance of guidelines for establishing a centralized command center at the principal seat in Jabalpur and district centers in each district headquarters to oversee live streaming as per Rule 5(a) of the Rules, (vi) issuance of guidelines directing monitoring centers to prevent inappropriate content, enforce a 20-minute delay on live streams, and ensure strict compliance with the Live Streaming Rules, 2021, and (vii) issuance of directive to ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639, regarding limitations on live streaming of court proceedings.
The petitioner contended that respondents 5-7 have grossly misused live-streamed court proceedings by creating “memes,” “reels,” and “shorts” on platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube and the alleged misuse includes editing and posting court clips with sensational captions to increase viewer engagement and generate revenue, enabled public comments that sometimes insult judges, advocates, and court officials and highlighted parts of videos to maximize viewership, leading to abusive comments and a mockery of the judicial system. The petitioner referred to Rule 11(b) of the Rules which prohibits unauthorized recording, sharing, and repurposing of live-streamed proceedings, establishing the court’s exclusive copyright over these recordings.
The Court issued an interim order restraining respondents 5-7, as well as social media platforms and the public, from unauthorized editing or sharing of live-streamed court proceedings. The Court directed that all previously uploaded content in violation of Rule 11(b) of the Rules must be removed. The Court gave respondents time to file a counter-affidavit. The Court directed to fixed the next hearing after six weeks.
[Vijay Bajaj v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7169, Decided on 04-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Sandeep Shukla, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Mihir Agrawal, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3
Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah, Additional Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4/State
