The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a firm directive on Monday. It ordered the removal of 102 social media links. These links had misused live-streamed court proceedings.
Court Gives Platforms 48 Hours to Act
A division bench led by Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf passed this order. They gave social media platforms just 48 hours to take down the offending content. The clips were circulating widely as memes, reels, and sensational videos.
Petition Warns of Distorted Proceedings
The bench was hearing a petition filed by advocates Arihant Tiwari and Vidit Shah, along with Dr Vijay Bajaj from Jabalpur. The petitioners warned that edited excerpts from open court hearings were being selectively shared on platforms like YouTube and Instagram.
This selective circulation distorts judicial proceedings. It also erodes the dignity of the institution, the petition argued. The petitioners stated that short videos lifted from live streams sensationalised judicial remarks and courtroom exchanges. They contended this amounts to contempt of court.
Details of the Misused Content
Advocate Arihant Tiwari presented details in court. He said the clips included selective portrayals of judges' exchanges during hearings. One video showed Justice Vivek Agarwal revoking bail after an accused person jumped bail. This was followed by a clip of the accused's daughter pleading in court.
Other videos highlighted sharp remarks by judges toward advocates. These remarks were over issues like non-appearance or lack of preparedness. Observations made by Justice Rohit Arya during hearings in Gwalior were also featured in these clips.
Petitioners Seek Tighter Monitoring
The petitioners did not stop at seeking removal. They asked for tighter monitoring of live-streamed hearings. They proposed a move away from open platforms such as YouTube. Instead, they suggested a secure, Webex-based system. This system would be overseen by the High Court's registrar for information technology.
Background and Meta's Response
During earlier proceedings, the high court had asked Meta to identify objectionable content. Meta told the bench it would act once specific URLs were provided. Acting on that direction, the petitioners submitted a list of 102 links.
The case will be heard again on March 24. The court's order underscores a growing concern. The misuse of publicly available court streams on social media poses a serious challenge. It threatens the sanctity and proper perception of judicial processes.
