Advocates Association Bengaluru had filed a petition seeking direction to the Union government to pass orders restraining individuals, video-makers, media agencies etc. from illegally using the livestreamed videos of court proceedings.
Published Sep 24, 2024 | 4:35 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 24, 2024 | 4:35 PM
Karnataka High Court to hear petition over use of non-existing judgments in trial court order (Wikmedia)
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, 24 September, barred the unauthorised sharing of videos from the livestreaming of court proceedings by media agencies and individuals.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said, “Till next date, respondents R6 to R8 [YouTube, Facebook and X] are restrained from sharing livestreamed videos and R9 to R13 [some media agencies] are restrained from displaying the videos on their channels. They (R6 to R8) are directed to delete the videos livestreamed on channels posted in violation of rules.”
Advocates Association Bengaluru had filed a petition seeking direction to the Union government to pass orders restraining individuals, video-makers, media agencies etc. from illegally using the livestreamed videos of court proceedings.
The plea was filed after two video clips of Justice V Srishananda of the high court surfaced on social media, in which he was seen making objectionable remarks.
Meanwhile, activists and several lawyers voiced opinions against the court’s decision and highlighted that the comments of the judge were exposed only because the videos were shared.
Tara Krishnaswamy, a social activist, said the order was absolutely reprehensible.
“The court is basically saying that they have lots to hide. It is a public quote; it belongs to the people of India. It is not proprietary. How can it be illegal to share when it is already being livestreamed,” she wondered.
Syeda Shehnaz, a high court advocate, said the move was not in the right direction.
“Since the video was shared, he was pulled up. If it hadn’t been, how would people have known about the comments? Everybody owes a responsibility. What does it mean if somebody sitting there is becoming irresponsible and not being monitored,” she questioned.
She added that had the video not been shared, the Supreme Court would never have known about the judge’s behaviour.
The Supreme Court had taken note of the controversial comments by Justice Srishananda and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General. The judge later expressed regret for his actions and words.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil)
