Supreme Court: Bhanu Pratap Singh Must Use IT Act for Video Takedown

• The Supreme Court directed lawyer Bhanu Pratap Singh to first issue legal notices to news portals and social media intermediaries for the removal of his courtroom appearance video.
• The Court emphasized utilizing remedies under the Information Technology Act and Intermediary Rules before directly petitioning the apex court in the case of *Bhanu Pratap Singh v. Union of India*.
• The lawyer had sought action against platforms circulating his video, which he claimed would hamper his profession, after an order concerning unauthorized use of court proceedings dated July 24, 2026.
• A bench including CJI Surya Kant instructed the lawyer to reference the July 24, 2026, order in his legal notices and warn of penal action for non-compliance.

This ruling by the Supreme Court establishes a significant procedural precedent for managing online content disputes across India.

The Supreme Court of India recently declined to entertain a petition filed by a lawyer, Bhanu Pratap Singh, who sought judicial intervention against news portals and social media intermediaries. The lawyer had requested action for the circulation of a recording depicting his courtroom appearance. In the case of *Bhanu Pratap Singh v. Union of India*, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, directed the petitioner to first utilize the established legal avenues. This directive mandates that the lawyer approach the relevant news portals and social media platforms directly to request the removal of the videos under the provisions of the Information Technology Act and its associated Intermediary Rules, thereby clarifying the initial steps for a Bhanu Pratap Singh SC IT Act video takedown.

The lawyer had informed the Court that the video of his appearance before the Supreme Court was disseminated by news portals on August 28. This circulation occurred more than a month after a specific Court order dated July 24, 2026, which addressed the unauthorized use of court proceedings. He further contended that the continued circulation of this video would negatively impact his professional standing and career. However, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking its direct intervention for Supreme Court IT Act video removal.

Chief Justice Kant explicitly instructed the petitioner to "first avail the legal remedy," outlining the precise procedure for initiating an online content takedown in India. This involves issuing a formal legal notice to the implicated news portals and social media intermediaries. The notice must specifically reference the Court’s order from July 24, 2026, and clearly state that these entities are obligated to comply with the Court’s directions. Furthermore, the notice should warn that their failure to conform could lead to penal action, and it must demand immediate action for the content's removal. This guidance underscores the procedural requirements under the Information Technology Act intermediary rules.

The Court's stance highlights the importance of the existing framework for content moderation and removal. By directing the lawyer to issue a legal notice for social media removal, the bench reinforced the principle that platforms, as intermediaries, have responsibilities under the IT Act. The Chief Justice also questioned the lawyer's hesitation to pursue these remedies against those allegedly circulating the video, remarking on the lawyer's prior assertiveness in making "abusive and chosen words and make such fierce allegations" while appearing "shy" of taking legal action against entities described as "people creating news" and "antisocial elements." This exchange further solidified the Court's expectation for adherence to established legal processes.

This ruling by the Supreme Court establishes a significant procedural precedent for managing online content disputes across India. It clearly articulates that individuals seeking the removal of online material, such as a video of a courtroom appearance, must first exhaust the remedies available under the Information Technology Act and its Intermediary Rules. This means issuing a formal legal notice to the platforms hosting the content before directly petitioning the apex court. The decision reinforces a hierarchical approach to dispute resolution, ensuring that statutory mechanisms are fully utilized.

For legal practitioners, this judgment serves as a critical reminder to advise clients on the mandatory statutory notice requirements for online content takedown India. It also places a clear onus on compliance officers of online platforms to be prepared for and responsive to such legal notices, as non-compliance could attract penal action. The Court's refusal to bypass these initial steps underscores its commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal process and preventing the Supreme Court from becoming the first port of call for issues that can be resolved through existing regulatory frameworks. This directive streamlines the process for content removal and ensures accountability at the intermediary level.

The Supreme Court has clarified the procedural hierarchy for seeking removal of online content, mandating that lawyers first exhaust remedies under the Information Technology Act and Intermediary Rules by issuing legal notices to platforms before directly petitioning the court. This establishes a critical precedent for managing online content disputes in India, requiring legal practitioners to advise clients on statutory notice requirements and compliance officers of online platforms to be prepared for such notices.

Source: Original reporting via a legal news outlet