During Wednesday hearing, the Court noted that the lawyer was not alleging that the recording had been fabricated or manipulated to misrepresent what had happened in court.
“You are not saying that they fabricated your video.
You are not saying that they used AI or anything else to harm your reputation or cause damage,” said CJI Kant.
He then distinguished such alleged manipulation from the unauthorised commercial use of an actual recording of court proceedings.
It may amount to criminal contempt and would require very serious action,” explained CJI Kant.
During Wednesday hearing, the Court noted that the lawyer was not alleging that the recording had been fabricated or manipulated to misrepresent what had happened in court.
“You are not saying that they fabricated your video. You are not saying that they used AI or anything else to harm your reputation or cause damage,” said CJI Kant.
He then distinguished such alleged manipulation from the unauthorised commercial use of an actual recording of court proceedings.
“We understand if somebody commits contempt of our July 24 order. Suppose the live-streaming is going on and you are arguing before us. If a channel commercially exploits that exchange, it may be committing contempt...But if they add words which we never spoke or attribute something to the Bench which was never said, that is far more serious. They would then be indulging in a criminal act. It may amount to criminal contempt and would require very serious action,” explained CJI Kant.
“Unauthorised commercial exploitation despite our order falls in another domain,” he added.
