The Advocates Association Bengaluru on Monday moved the Karnataka High Court demanding that social media users, media agencies and the public be restrained from using live stream videos of court proceedings, Live Law reported.

The association has also sought directives to platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and X to immediately delete videos and clips that have been created using live streams of court proceedings.

This came after two video clips showing High Court Justice V Srishananda making controversial comments during two separate hearings were widely shared online in recent days.

In this backdrop, the advocates’ group sought directions from the Union government to authorities to take criminal action against persons and entities allegedly misusing court videos, Live Law reported.

The association contended in its petition that videos of court proceedings have given the public the scope to criticise the judiciary and advocates in an unwarranted manner.

The advocates’ group also claimed that the videos were hurting young professionals in the field. “The young budding lawyers are becoming conscious of the fact that they may be trolled for their submission/arguments and thus creating a great threat to the profession at large especially when we are facing a shortage of good and efficient litigating lawyers,” Live Law quoted the petition as saying.

Judge’s remarks

At one of the hearings, Srishananda was heard referring to the Muslim-dominated locality of Gori Palya in Bengaluru as “Pakistan” and claiming that the police could not enforce traffic rules there. In another video, he was heard saying to a woman lawyer that she seemed to know so much about the opposite party in a litigation that she could even reveal the colour of their undergarments.

Srishananda’s comments had led to widespread criticism on social media platforms.

On Friday, the Supreme Court had taken cognisance of the two video clips of Srishananda’s remarks. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud sought a report from the High Court registrar general on the comments.

The Supreme Court said it may lay down basic guidelines about judges making observations in court.

On Monday, Srishananda expressed regret for his comments, saying they had been made unintentionally and were not meant to hurt any person or section of the society, Live Law reported.

The verbal remarks he had made during the judicial proceedings had been reported out-of-context on social media, the judge claimed.

Srishananda also said that the comment he had made to the woman advocate was not intended towards her, but to her client.