The Delhi High Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Dr. Kapil Kakar over videos allegedly targeting a sitting judge and the judiciary, while directing social media platforms to remove the content, stressing that intermediaries cannot ignore material undermining judicial independence or reputations.
The Delhi High Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Dr. Kapil Kakar and others over social media videos and posts allegedly making serious allegations against a sitting judge of the Court and the judiciary. The Court also directed major social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, X and LinkedIn, to immediately remove the content and prevent its further circulation.
A Division Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain was hearing a contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association.
The petition sought action against the respondents for allegedly publishing and circulating videos containing scandalous allegations against a sitting judge and the institution of the judiciary.
According to the petition, the videos and posts uploaded on various social media platforms contained allegations of corruption, collusion, criminality, murder, quid pro quo arrangements and improper motives in relation to judicial proceedings and orders passed by the Court.
The Bar Association argued that the publications were intended to lower the authority of the Court, undermine public confidence in the administration of justice and interfere with the independent functioning of the judiciary.
The petition further alleged that the impugned material continued to remain available online and could be reposted, downloaded, clipped, forwarded and amplified across multiple social media platforms. It was also claimed that the respondent had used the videos and posts to promote his web series and related promotional material, thereby continuing a campaign aimed at scandalising the judiciary and weakening public faith in courts.
While considering the request for interim directions, the High Court observed that restrictions on publication must always be balanced with the constitutional guarantee of free speech. However, the Court noted that freedom of speech does not extend to content that prima facie scandalises courts, undermines public confidence in the justice system or interferes with judicial functions.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das, Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., and Amish Devgan vs. Union of India, the Bench discussed the principles governing interim restraint orders and the balance between free speech, reputation and institutional dignity.
The Court made it clear that criticism of judicial decisions is legally permissible, but there are limits.
The Bench observed,
“Fair criticism of judicial orders and institutions is permissible in law. However, allegations attributing corruption, collusion, criminality or improper motives to Judges, without any lawful basis, stand on an altogether different footing and cannot be equated with legitimate criticism.”
After examining the videos, the Court found that immediate intervention was necessary.
The Bench observed,
“Bare perusal of the videos, which have been uploaded allegedly by Respondent No.1, making allegations of corruption and collusion between sitting Judges of this Court and Government Agencies and labeling a person as habitual offender and murderer, are nothing but absolutely scandalous, contumacious and is a direct interference in Justice Delivery System.”
The Court also highlighted the growing influence of social media and warned against its misuse.
The Bench stated,
“While easy access to social media has undeniable benefits, as it enables information to spread instantaneously, it cannot be overlooked that such tools must be used responsibly and not as instruments to undermine institutions or cause harm to society. Any endeavour to use them, to cause harm to the society or to interfere the independence of Judiciary and to malign the institutions and individuals, cannot be accepted in this country, where Rule of Law and principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, prevail.”
High Court emphasized that social media platforms cannot remain passive observers when content circulating on their services seeks to undermine judicial independence or tarnish the reputation of institutions and individuals.
The Court further observed that those responsible for publishing such content must face legal consequences. At the same time, it stressed that intermediaries and social media platforms cannot remain passive spectators once unlawful content comes to their notice.
Referring to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Court noted that intermediaries lose statutory protection if, after receiving actual knowledge of unlawful content, they fail to remove or disable access to it expeditiously.
The Court observed,
“Therefore, as soon as it comes to the knowledge of intermediary that there is an information, which is being used to commit an unlawful act, it is under an obligation to immediately remove the information, data or communication link residing in or connected to resource controlled by the intermediary and expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without evidence in any manner.”
During the hearing, counsel appearing for Meta Platforms, Google LLC and LinkedIn informed the Court that they would immediately remove the impugned content and take steps to ensure that it is not reposted on their respective platforms.
Taking note of these submissions, the High Court directed Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and all persons acting on their behalf not to upload, publish, circulate, distribute, share, transmit or make available the videos or any identical, mirrored, edited, clipped, reproduced, re-uploaded or substantially similar versions on any platform, website, social media account, application, WhatsApp or any other medium.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams Journalist Ajay Shukla with Suo Motu Contempt for “Godi Judge” Remark
The Court further ordered the social media platforms to take down and block the identified URLs and accounts associated with the content within 24 hours of receiving the order. It also directed the platforms to provide, in a sealed cover or password-protected document, subscriber information including names, email addresses, contact details, IP logs and registration details of the users responsible for uploading or disseminating the videos.
Additionally, the Court ordered that any future URLs containing the same or substantially similar content must also be removed within 24 hours upon notification by the Registrar General of the High Court.
Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 during the proceedings.
The Court has now issued notice in the contempt petition and listed the matter before the roster bench for further hearing on July 9, 2026.