Karnataka HC Issues Live Streaming Guidelines After Judge's Remarks Whipp-Up Storm: Supreme Court Intervenes

A Karnataka High Court judge, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda’s recent remarks while hearing a matter in the High Court have whipped up a storm on social media, and video clips of his contentious statements have stirred a hornet’s nest, prompting the Supreme Court to take suo moto cognisance and constitute a five-judge bench to deliberate on the issue.

A five-judge bench of Chief Justice Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Suryakant, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy passed an order seeking a report from the Karnataka High Court after due consideration of the issue. CJI told Attorney General of India R Venkatramani, "The reason we have assembled is because of the gratuitous comments made by a judge of the Karnataka High Court, the videos of which are now getting circulated".

On August 28, 2024, Justice Srishananda of the Karnataka HC was heard referring to the Gori Palya area of Bengaluru, which is a Muslim-dominated part of the city, as ‘Pakistan,’ which sparked an instantaneous outrage on social media. The Judge was heard saying, "The Mysore flyover leads from Gori Palya to the market to the left. It is in Pakistan, not in India." The issue of such a discourse came up while the Judge was hearing a discussion on a lease agreement under the Rent Control Act and while discussing legal amendments relating to the issue. Such disputable statements are bound to incite communal tensions.

Equally disputable was another video clip of the same judge making objectionable remarks while addressing a woman Advocate during a hearing, which has also sparked outrage for its sexist connotation. The judge was heard telling the woman advocate, "Next, you’ll tell us his undergarment colour."

Taking note of the instant issue, the Chief Justice of India stated, "Attorney General, we may lay down some basic guidelines and seek a report from the Secretary General of the High Court". "In this age of social media, we are closely watched, and we have to act accordingly," he added. The Registrar General of the High Court was directed to submit a report to the Supreme Court after consulting the Chief Justice of the Karnataka HC and seeking administrative directions from him. 

Pursuant to the instant controversy, the Karnataka HC issued a public notice ahead of launching the live streaming of its court proceedings, stating the restrictions under the Karnataka Rules on live streaming and recording of court proceedings. The High Court’s 'note' underlined that unauthorized usage of live-streamed proceedings or recordings would lead to legal consequences, particularly in response to viral videos showing objectionable comments made by judges during hearings. 

Due emphasis was drawn to Rule 10(2) in the note, which strictly prohibits individuals or entities, including media and social media platforms, from recording, sharing, or disseminating live-streamed court proceedings or archival data without prior authorization. This rule applies to all forms of communication, including messaging platforms.

"Violations would result in prosecution under relevant laws, including the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, among others." 

The note also added that the court retains exclusive copyright over recordings and archival data.

The guidelines also emphasise that any party or litigant assessing the live stream must adhere to these rules, which also forbid reproduction, transmission, uploading, posting, or any modification of the recordings without the court’s written approval. However, the court may permit the use of authorised recordings for purposes such as news dissemination, academic research, and educational training. In such cases, the recordings must remain unaltered and cannot be used for commercial or promotional activities. Unauthorised recording devices in courtrooms are also strictly prohibited.

In the meanwhile Justice Srishananda has expressed regret for the objectionable comments and clarified that,

“A few observations made during judicial proceedings were reported out of context on social media platforms. The observations were unintentional and not meant to hurt any individual or any section of society. If such observations hurt any individual or any section of society or community, I express my sincere regrets.”

(For more updates, tap to join us on Whatsapp, Instagram and LinkedIn)