New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 30) allowed an intervention application filed by transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri in a case concerning the live-streaming of court proceedings.The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Suryakant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. The applicants were represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan, Cheryl D’Souza and Alice Raj.The application pertains to the Supreme Court’s July 24 interim order banning the posting or uploading of audio-video recordings of court proceedings on digital platforms including social media without the prior permission of the concerned court. Supreme court invites suggestionsDuring the hearing, Bhushan submitted that the court should consider maintaining an official archive of live-streams and audio recordings of court proceedings. In response, the CJI said the court would examine such guidelines and asked the applicants to submit their suggestions.According to the intervention application, the issues involved in the case affect the principles of open justice, freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), the right to information, and press freedom.The application argued that concerns about misuse or misrepresentation of court proceedings can be addressed by providing authorised live-streams and audio-video recordings along with rules governing their reuse, extraction, sharing and dissemination. It says that such an approach would be preferable to broad restrictions on these activities or limiting exemptions to recognised news organisations. It also said that the terms governing the use of recordings should ensure fair and accurate representation of proceedings that are already open to the public.The intervention also challenged the requirement of prior permission from the Secretary General or Registrar General before recordings can be extracted, disseminated or reposted. It says this makes access dependent on administrative approval and imposes an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression as well as the right to information.Referring to social media and online news dissemination, the application pointed out the growing overlap between journalists and ordinary citizens.The applicants argued that allowing recognised media organisations to share court proceedings while restricting others would be inconsistent with this reality concerning modern media.BackgroundThe apex court bench passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation filed by journalist Harshita Grover on guidelines to regulate the clipping, editing, dissemination and monetisation of audiovisual recordings of court proceedings on digital platforms.The petitioner pointed out that “selective and decontextualised circulation of courtroom exchanges is undermining the dignity of courts and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system.”During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant had underlined that distorted reporting is a matter of concern while blaming print media too.“In the print forum, I have already experienced. What I never said was thrust upon me by these people,” the CJI said.“In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter [pertaining to the youth protests] was filed, and the media is absolutely free from all responsibility and falsely reporting that the Chief Justice refused to list the matter,” he mentioned, adding that no such petition was filed.The CJI’s remarks were in the context of his July 22 statement to lawyer Narendra Mishra, in which the CJI had said, “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time,” regarding the youth protests agains paper leaks. Mishra had mentioned the petition challenging police action on protesters.