No Selfies, No Reels: Supreme Court’s Strict Ban Inside Restricted Premises Explained

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, the apex judicial authority, has recently issued a strict ban on photography and videography inside its high-security zones, including selfies, reels, and casual recordings. This move is not merely a rule about cameras—it reflects deeper concerns about security, decorum, and the sanctity of judicial proceedings. In today’s social-media-driven culture, where reels and selfies are routine, this decision may surprise some. But for those familiar with the Supreme Court’s role and the sensitive nature of its work, the reasoning is clear and significant.

In this detailed guide, we will break down why the ban was issued, who it applies to, the potential penalties, and what it means for lawyers, litigants, interns, journalists, and the general public. We will also explore legal implications, previous instances of similar restrictions, and best practices for visiting the Supreme Court without breaching the rules.

Also Read: Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility: A Complete Guide

Background: Why the Ban Was Issued

Growing Security Concerns

The Supreme Court handles cases of national importance, including sensitive constitutional issues, high-profile criminal appeals, and matters that may have security implications. Unauthorized photography or videography could inadvertently expose security layouts, restricted areas, or even sensitive documents.

Rise of Social Media Trends

In recent years, there has been an increase in incidents where lawyers, interns, or visitors have taken selfies or shot reels inside the premises to post on platforms like Instagram or LinkedIn. Even seemingly harmless content can disrupt decorum or create perceptions that undermine the dignity of the court.

Official Circular from the Supreme Court

On [date of issuance], the Secretary General of the Supreme Court issued a circular explicitly prohibiting:

1. Selfies and reels inside the restricted zone.

2. Photography or video recording using cameras, tripods, selfie sticks, or even mobile phones.

3. Media interviews or live broadcasts outside designated low-security zones.

The circular emphasizes that the restriction applies not only inside the courtroom but also to lawns and corridors within the high-security area.

Also Read: Supreme Court's Landmark Verdict: Limits on Government Takeover of Private Property

Scope of the Ban: Who Is Affected

The order applies comprehensively to all categories of people entering the high-security area:

Also Read: Supreme Court to Decide: Will Law Degrees in India Become Shorter and More Affordable?

Areas Covered Under the Ban

The high-security zone includes:

1. Courtrooms and corridors leading to them.

2. Lawns within the high-security perimeter.

3. Registrar and Chamber blocks.

4. Library areas not open to the public.

The low-security zone (such as some outer lawns) is the only permissible area for media interviews, but even here, permission may be required for official shoots.

Penalties and Disciplinary Action

The circular lays out clear penalties for violations:

• Media persons: Suspension of high-security zone access for one month.

• Lawyers or interns: Reporting to Bar Associations or State Bar Councils.

• Registry staff: Strict internal measures (could include warnings, suspension, or departmental inquiry).

• Other visitors: Immediate removal and potential permanent restriction of entry.

This stern approach signals that the Supreme Court will not tolerate even minor breaches, given the sensitive nature of its work.

Legal and Ethical Justification

a. Respect for Judicial Decorum

Courts are not tourist attractions—they are venues for justice delivery. Allowing casual photography could diminish the seriousness of proceedings.

b. Protection of Sensitive Information

Photos or videos could capture confidential case documents or security arrangements, posing risks to litigants, witnesses, and the judiciary.

c. Precedent in Other Institutions

Similar bans exist in:

1. Parliament Houses (photography restricted in certain areas).

2. High-profile government offices.

3. International courts like the US Supreme Court, which prohibits cameras inside.

Impact on Different Stakeholders

Lawyers and Bar Associations

Lawyers must ensure discipline within their ranks. A casual reel could now lead to disciplinary hearings or even affect professional reputation.

Law Students and Interns

Interns are often tempted to capture their Supreme Court experience. However, violating the ban could result in academic consequences or a black mark on their career record.

Media Houses

Media professionals now have clear boundaries—interviews must happen only in the designated areas, and prior permissions may be essential.

General Visitors

For the public, this reinforces that Supreme Court visits are serious matters. Visitors should focus on the legal process, not content creation.

Previous Incidents That Prompted the Decision

Reports suggest that several recent cases involved people posting reels or videos that:

1. Showed security arrangements or lawyer-client discussions.

2. Disrupted decorum in hallways or court lawns.

3. Were used to sensationalize sensitive cases on social media.

These incidents alerted the registry and security officials, prompting the formal circular.

What Counts as a Restricted Premises Violation?

To avoid confusion, here are examples:

Allowed

1. Taking a photograph outside the Supreme Court gates or in public areas.

2. Media coverage from approved zones.

Not Allowed

1. Clicking selfies near courtroom entrances.

2. Filming a reel on the high-security lawn.

3. Recording conversations with lawyers inside corridors.

4. Using tripods or selfie sticks in any restricted area.

Security Measures and Enforcement

Security personnel at the Supreme Court are now **empowered to:

1. Stop individuals taking photos or videos.

2. Inspect devices if a breach is suspected.

3. Confiscate access passes or alert authorities.

The use of metal detectors, CCTV monitoring, and controlled entry gates will complement enforcement.

Implications for Digital Journalism

The order does not restrict press freedom but sets boundaries for maintaining decorum. Journalists must:

1. Apply for necessary permissions for in-depth coverage.

2. Restrict live updates to designated press areas.

3. Use file photos or external footage for visuals inside reports.

Public Reaction and Legal Community Response

The ban has drawn mixed reactions:

1. Supporters argue it preserves dignity and protects security.

2. Critics say it reflects an overly cautious approach in a digital era.

Bar Associations have largely welcomed the move, citing prior disruptions caused by unauthorized content. Social media users, however, have shared memes joking about the ban, highlighting its cultural resonance.

Comparison with Global Practices

United States Supreme Court

• Cameras are strictly prohibited inside. Only official sketches are allowed.

UK Supreme Court

• Allows live streaming of some proceedings but under strict supervision.

European Court of Human Rights

• Provides official media but restricts personal photography.

These examples show that India’s Supreme Court ban is consistent with global best practices.

Advice for Visitors and Practitioners

Do’s

1. Follow security personnel instructions.

2. Use designated press zones for media coverage.

3. Keep phones on silent mode inside the premises.

Don’ts

1. Do not take selfies or reels inside restricted areas.

2. Avoid publicly discussing sensitive cases near courtrooms.

3. Do not argue with security if stopped—comply respectfully.

Potential Legal Consequences of Defiance

While the circular primarily mentions administrative penalties, defiance could also invite:

1. Contempt of court proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 if actions are deemed disrespectful.

2. Criminal trespass charges under Section 441 of the IPC in extreme cases of breach.

This highlights the seriousness of compliance.

Broader Lessons: Respecting Institutional Boundaries

The Supreme Court’s ban is a reminder that not every space is a backdrop for content creation. It underscores:

1. Balancing freedom of expression with institutional security.

2. Understanding legal ethics—especially for lawyers and law students.

3. Maintaining professionalism in the age of social media.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to ban selfies, reels, and casual photography inside its restricted premises is not an arbitrary rule but a necessary step to preserve the sanctity and security of India’s highest judicial institution. In an age where content creation often overshadows context, this move serves as a powerful reminder of respect for institutional boundaries.

For lawyers, interns, journalists, and the public, compliance is simple—leave the cameras and selfie sticks outside and focus on the judicial process that upholds India’s democracy. Respecting this rule is not just about avoiding penalties—it is about honoring the dignity and integrity of the Supreme Court.