Today, On 23rd April, Delhi High Court has issued notice to Arvind Kejriwal over alleged illegal publication of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s court videos, ordering all intermediaries to remove them, stressing larger institutional interest before the July hearing as the court proceeds.
The Delhi High Court heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal, several AAP leaders, and journalist Ravish Kumar over allegations that court proceedings were recorded without permission and circulated on social media.
The matter comes a day after Justice Tejas Karia recused himself from hearing the case.
The PIL heard by a division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
The Delhi High Court issued notice to Arvind Kejriwal on a plea seeking contempt action against him for allegedly publishing and circulating videos of court proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case.
The Court has also directed all social media intermediaries and search engines to immediately take down every video recording of the proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, noting that such recordings violate the Delhi High Court’s video conferencing rules, which expressly prohibit unauthorized recording or sharing of hearings.
The Bench said the issue concerns the larger institutional interest and stressed that no part of the proceedings whether edited, clipped, or selectively uploaded can remain online.
The matter will be heard next in July.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the court proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma were illegally recorded and widely shared online, in violation of video conferencing norms.
When the Bench sought clarity on the applicable rules, The counsel stated,
“The rules prohibit the recording of court proceedings unless expressly permitted by the Court.”
He further added that reposting such content amounts to publication, saying, As far as reposting is concerned, that tantamount to publication. One Digvijay Singh has uploaded it. There are others also who have uploaded it. These posts are to scandalise the court proceedings.
The Bench observed that the core grievance of the petitioner was that both recording and circulation of such proceedings are prohibited.
The counsel agreed and stressed that only selective and edited portions of the hearing were uploaded online to suit a particular agenda.
He went on to allege,
“The manner in which it was done smells of deep conspiracy by Mr Arvind Kejriwal”.”
The court then questioned whether it would be possible to trace the original uploader of the video or identify the person who recorded the proceedings.
The petitioner’s counsel responded that identifying the original recorder may not be feasible.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for X (formerly Twitter), explained the traceability mechanism, stating,
“If a video is uploaded today, it is linked to a URL. When an account is created on the platform, a mobile number is required. We can provide that number to the court, and using it, the person’s details can be traced. Law enforcement agencies can also use this information to identify the individual.”
The Court was informed that the Registrar General of the High Court had already issued a communication, following which the Ministry of Home Affairs directed social media intermediaries to remove certain URLs, and the counsel confirmed compliance with this direction.
The Bench then raised concerns about the larger issue of preventing repeated uploads of such content and questioned whether platforms could ensure automatic takedown of similar videos in the future, but intermediaries stated that such technology may not be available in this context.
Counsel for X explained that while certain categories like pornographic content can be automatically detected and removed using advanced tools, similar systems are not available for content involving alleged legal violations such as defamation or copyright, and clarified that intermediaries cannot act as a “super-censor” and are only required to make reasonable efforts under the law.
Highlighting technical challenges, the counsel pointed out that videos are often re-uploaded in smaller clips or modified formats, making detection difficult, and added that platforms lack the technology to differentiate whether a video relates to proceedings of courts like the Delhi High Court or Supreme Court or whether such uploads are permitted, reiterating that they cannot proactively monitor their platforms.
The Additional Solicitor General pointed out that specific rules govern virtual court proceedings and noted that participants must give an undertaking not to record them.
The Bench acknowledged this, stating that anyone accessing the virtual proceedings must agree not to make unauthorized recordings.
The court also raised concerns that such content could be monetised online, adding another layer of complexity. The Bench emphasised that the issue goes beyond individual violations and touches upon larger institutional concerns, warning that if left unchecked, it could have wider implications.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar informed the court that the URLs flagged by the Registrar General had already been taken down and argued that platforms like Facebook or X cannot be held liable for contempt in such cases. He also stated that such complaints are rare despite years of court functioning.
The petitioner’s counsel, however, cautioned that even if content is removed today, it may be re-uploaded again, requiring repeated takedown requests.
Responding to this concern, the Bench stated,
“We’ll direct that all URLs containing the April 13 proceedings when Kejriwal argued his recusal application be taken down.”
The court recorded submissions that X had already removed the flagged content and would file an affidavit detailing its position.
Similarly, Google informed the court that it had removed the specified links, although it disputed claims that certain YouTube links contained the April 13 proceedings.
The petitioner contested this, prompting the Bench to direct immediate takedown if such content was found and to file an affidavit.
In its order, the court also referred to the Information Technology Rules 2021, specifically Rule 3(1)(b)(xi), noting that intermediaries are obligated to make reasonable efforts to ensure users do not host, publish, or share unlawful content.
The matter is now listed for further hearing in July, where the court is expected to examine both the issue of alleged contempt and the larger question of regulating unauthorized recording and circulation of court proceedings in the digital age.
Read Attachment
Case Title: VAIBHAV SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS