The Delhi High Court directed social media platforms to remove posts and videos alleging misconduct by a sitting judge in the Saket building collapse case, observing that such content appeared intended to scandalise the judiciary. The Court said such material cannot remain online indefinitely.
The Delhi High Court directed major social media platforms to remove videos and posts alleging misconduct by a sitting High Court judge in connection with the recent Saket building collapse, observing that such content appeared intended to scandalise the judiciary and could not remain online indefinitely.
A division bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain issued the directive while hearing a criminal contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association against Dr. Kapil Kakar, who had uploaded multiple videos and posts after the Saket tragedy.
The May 30, 2026 collapse claimed the lives of six young doctors and two software engineers, triggering widespread public anger and renewed scrutiny of building safety, municipal oversight, and regulatory enforcement in the national capital.
The controversy, however, took a different turn when Kakar published social media content claiming the disaster was not solely the result of administrative failures, but was connected to judicial conduct.
In his posts, Kakar alleged that warnings about allegedly unsafe construction activities had previously been brought before the Delhi High Court.
He further contended that a sitting judge allegedly did not intervene despite being informed, and suggested that the deaths were attributable not only to civic authorities but also to judicial action. Some videos reportedly went further by describing the judge as the “real criminal” behind the incident and questioning whether he should face imprisonment or even capital punishment.
The Delhi High Court Bar Association then approached the court seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings, arguing that the allegations were false, scandalous, and amounted to a direct attack on the judiciary as an institution.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, representing the lawyers’ body, argued that the videos were not genuine expressions of criticism or part of a legitimate public debate, but rather a deliberate effort to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice by targeting a sitting constitutional functionary with grave claims unsupported by any legal finding.
During the hearing, the bench expressed concern about the increasing frequency with which judges are targeted personally through social media. Justice Krishna asked whether intermediaries should remain passive when content that is prima facie abusive, defamatory, or contemptuous is brought to their notice.
The court’s observations reflected a wider concern seen in courts across the country: the rapid spread of allegations online, which often outpaces the slower process by which courts can examine and respond to such claims. Justice Krishna noted that courts are frequently confronted with these situations and that it cannot reasonably be expected that every affected person will initiate legal action every time objectionable material circulates online.
The bench also questioned what responsibilities intermediaries bear once content is flagged and appears potentially unlawful. The court suggested that simply waiting for a judicial order in every case may not be an effective approach, particularly in cases involving serious attacks on institutions and individuals. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma supported the concern, submitting that intermediaries cannot maintain complete distance when objectionable content is brought to their attention.
The submissions indicated that platforms should act when material is manifestly shocking or unlawful, rather than insisting on prolonged legal processes before taking any step.
The bench also remarked that public memory is often short-lived, and that by the time allegations are disproved, substantial harm may already have been done.
Counsel for Meta, Google, and LinkedIn informed the court that the relevant links would be removed and that any additional links brought to their notice would likewise be acted upon. X Corp, however, was not represented during the proceedings despite receiving advance notice.
Directing the platforms to remove the content forthwith, the bench indicated that a detailed order would follow. The court also signalled that it was considering further directions regarding blocking of Kakar’s social media handles.