The Delhi High Court directed removal of additional videos uploaded by Dr. Kapil Kakkar containing allegations against a sitting High Court judge and linking the judge to the Saket building collapse deaths. The order was passed during proceedings in a criminal contempt petition initiated by the Delhi High Court Bar Association.
The Delhi High Court directed the removal of additional videos uploaded by Dr. Kapil Kakkar in which he allegedly repeated accusations against a sitting High Court judge and sought to hold the judge responsible for the deaths of six persons in the Saket building collapse that occurred on May 30.
The direction was issued by a Division Bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain during the hearing of a criminal contempt petition initiated at the instance of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA).
The matter was brought back before the Court after the DHCBA informed the Bench that despite an earlier order directing the removal of similar content and blocking of Kakkar’s social media accounts, he had continued to upload fresh videos repeating substantially the same allegations against the judge.
Appearing for the Bar Association, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan submitted that Kakkar had posted new videos after the Court’s June 8 order. According to Hariharan, Kakkar informed viewers in these videos that his existing social media accounts had been directed to be blocked and encouraged people to follow his personal account instead. Hariharan further informed the Court that Kakkar had also allegedly solicited financial contributions from viewers through the videos.
After reviewing the material placed before it, the Bench expressed concern over the growing misuse of social media platforms to circulate allegations against judges and institutions despite judicial intervention.
Questioning whether existing legal measures were proving effective, the Court remarked:
“What do we do with social media? In every single case, the courts have come down heavily, but is it acting as a deterrent? This is becoming increasingly common. What do you do with individuals who have chosen to go absolutely haywire? There are so many cases where people have been sent to jail, don’t say we have been kind.”
Taking note of the fresh content, the Court directed that the newly uploaded videos containing similar allegations also be removed.
Background of the Contempt Proceedings
The present proceedings originate from a criminal contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association against Dr. Kapil Kakkar. The Bar Association alleged that Kakkar had made scandalous, defamatory and contemptuous remarks against a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and, by extension, the institution of the judiciary.
Earlier, on June 8, the High Court had passed a detailed order directing the removal of videos and social media posts uploaded by Kakkar in which he allegedly described the judge as a “murderer” and sought to attribute responsibility for the Saket building collapse to judicial actions.
The Court had simultaneously directed the blocking of Kakkar’s accounts on X, Meta and YouTube, observing that the content prima facie constituted a serious attack on the administration of justice and the dignity of the judicial institution.
The controversy arose after a building collapse in Delhi’s Saket area on May 30, which claimed the lives of six individuals. In a series of videos circulated online, Kakkar allegedly claimed that the tragedy was linked to a prior legal dispute concerning alleged unauthorized construction at the property.
According to the DHCBA, Kakkar falsely asserted that a sitting Delhi High Court judge had dismissed a petition seeking intervention against illegal construction activities at the site because of an alleged corrupt nexus with municipal authorities.
The Bar Association has strongly disputed these claims. It contended before the Court that the judicial order relied upon by Kakkar did not dismiss the case on merits. Instead, the petition had merely been permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition because the owner of the property had not been made a party to the proceedings.
The DHCBA argued that Kakkar’s portrayal of the judicial proceedings was factually incorrect and deliberately designed to mislead the public regarding the role of the Court.
Alleged Remarks Against the Judiciary
The contempt petition reproduces several statements allegedly made by Kakkar in his videos. According to the DHCBA, the videos contain repeated attacks on the judge concerned, including references describing the judge as a “murderer.”
The petition further alleges that Kakkar accused the judiciary of systemic corruption and urged citizens to “rise against such injustice.”
The Bar Association has argued that such statements go beyond legitimate criticism of judicial decisions and amount to an attempt to scandalise the court, erode public confidence in the judicial system and interfere with the administration of justice.
According to the petition, the remarks were intended to create distrust among citizens regarding the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
The DHCBA has also alleged that Kakkar continued publishing videos even after controversy arose over his initial posts. Additional videos uploaded on June 4 and June 5 allegedly linked the same judge to an unrelated civil dispute involving ICICI Bank and suggested the existence of improper relationships between members of the judiciary and corporate entities.
The Bar Association argued that the continued publication of such content demonstrated a deliberate and sustained campaign against the judge and the institution of the judiciary.
The latest order of the Delhi High Court comes against this backdrop and reflects the Court’s concern over the increasing use of social media platforms to disseminate allegations against judges despite judicial directions and pending contempt proceedings.
The matter is expected to be considered further as the Court examines the allegations and the extent to which the conduct complained of amounts to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE