Supreme Court Mutes Livestream Audio During Fresh Case Mentions

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed that the audio of its live video feed be muted during the mentioning of fresh matters before the Chief Justice of India. The step prevents the public and the media from hearing lawyers’ requests for urgent listings and the court’s oral responses during these short morning sessions.

The decision was implemented in Courtroom No. 1, presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. It marks the first time since the introduction of hybrid hearings during the COVID-19 period that the audio of the virtual link has been switched off specifically for the mentioning process. Mentioning typically takes place soon after the Bench assembles at 10:30 am and lasts for about 10 to 15 minutes. While the video feed continues, the absence of audio means that those outside the courtroom, including litigants, lawyers and journalists following online, can no longer hear the exchanges.

Supreme Court orders muting of livestream audio during mentioning of fresh cases | India Today

Background to the Decision

The move comes days after the Chief Justice observed that the mentioning of urgent matters is an administrative or housekeeping exercise rather than a judicial proceeding and therefore should not be reported. The latest direction gives practical effect to that view by ensuring that discussions during fresh mentions remain inaudible on the court’s livestream.

The practice of mentioning allows lawyers to seek an urgent listing of cases that require immediate judicial intervention. Over the years, this process has often included high-profile public interest litigations, politically sensitive disputes and matters of constitutional importance. During these sessions, the Chief Justice decides whether a matter warrants an urgent hearing and may make brief oral observations while fixing a date or declining immediate listing.

Recent Controversy That Preceded the Order

In recent weeks, oral remarks made during mentioning sessions had drawn significant media attention. One such exchange involved a lawyer’s request for suo motu action against the Delhi Police in connection with action taken on student protesters. The Chief Justice’s comments during that interaction, including observations that the counsel should not waste the court’s time and that the Bench did not wish to watch videos, sparked controversy after they were widely reported. The Chief Justice later expressed concern that his words had been twisted or taken out of context, stating that what he had never said was being attributed to him.

Broader Context of Live Streaming Controls

The muting of audio during mentions forms part of a wider effort by the Supreme Court to regulate the dissemination of court proceedings in the digital age. Just days earlier, on 24 July, a three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice had issued an interim order restraining the extraction, modification, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting or uploading of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or other digital platforms without prior permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar Generals of the High Courts. The order clarified that it would not affect legitimate news reporting by recognised media outlets.

The Court has also been examining the impact of continuous live streaming and has sought status reports from High Courts on the adoption of the Model Rules for live streaming and recording of court proceedings. Concerns have been raised that selective clipping and out-of-context circulation of court videos risk trivialising the administration of justice.

Implications of the Change

By muting the audio during fresh mentions, the Supreme Court has drawn a clearer distinction between full judicial hearings, which remain accessible through the livestream, and the preliminary administrative process of deciding whether a matter deserves urgent listing. The development limits public and media access to oral exchanges that occur before a case is formally taken up for hearing.

While the court has not issued a detailed public circular explaining the technical arrangement, the practical effect is already visible. Audio resumes once the regular listed items begin. The change is expected to reduce the circulation of incomplete or decontextualised remarks arising from the mentioning process and to reinforce the administrative character of these interactions.

The MGMM Outlook 

The Supreme Court’s decision to mute the audio of livestreams during the mentioning of fresh cases reflects an effort to preserve the administrative nature of these proceedings while ensuring that judicial hearings remain transparent. By limiting public access only to the preliminary process of urgent case listings, the Court aims to prevent selective reporting and the circulation of remarks that may be taken out of context, while continuing to provide open access to substantive court proceedings.

At the same time, the move highlights the challenge of balancing transparency with the responsible use of digital technology in the justice system. As live streaming becomes an integral part of judicial functioning, clearly distinguishing between administrative interactions and formal hearings can help protect the integrity of the legal process while maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.

(Sources: India Today, NDTV, Moneycontrol)