The Delhi High Court on 23 April 2026 directed the takedown of social‑media posts that contained videos of a hearing where Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The order arose from a public‑interest litigation (PIL) that also sought contempt action against the politicians and journalist Ravish Kumar for allegedly recording and circulating the proceedings without permission.
Key Developments
- The bench, comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, noted Meta’s claim of having removed some URLs and Google’s stance that YouTube links did not contain court recordings.
- The court ordered Google to delete specific pages (25‑27 of the paper‑book) and to file an affidavit on its position.
- Intermediaries (Meta, Google, X) were asked to identify the original uploaders; Meta said it could provide IP and subscriber data, while Google said recordings occur outside its platform.
- The bench invoked IT Rules 2021, specifically Rule 3(1)(b), emphasizing the duty to prevent dissemination of illegal material.
- Senior Advocate Shreya Singhal v UOI was cited to underline that platforms cannot act as pre‑emptive sensors without a judicial directive.
Important Facts
- Petitioner Vaibhav Singh alleged that the April 13 hearing was recorded and uploaded without any court permission, violating the video‑conferencing rules that require an undertaking from participants.
- The petitioner argued that selective sharing of the footage served a political agenda and amounted to "scandalising" the court.
- Meta’s counsel highlighted that while basic subscriber information and IP logs are available, there is no automated mechanism to flag such content.
- The court scheduled the next hearing for 6 July 2026 to review compliance.
Exam Relevance
This case touches upon several core areas of the UPSC syllabus:
- Polity & Governance (GS2): The role of the judiciary in safeguarding its procedural sanctity, the concept of contempt, and the statutory duties of intermediaries under the IT Act.
- Technology & Society (GS3): How digital platforms are regulated, the balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect institutional integrity.
- Ethics & Integrity (GS4): The ethical implications of political actors using court footage for propaganda, and the responsibility of media houses.
Way Forward
To address the recurring challenge of unauthorized court recordings, the following steps are envisaged:
- Amend the IT Rules to mandate real‑time monitoring of video‑conferencing platforms during live hearings.
- Introduce a statutory “take‑down” protocol that obliges intermediaries to remove identified unlawful content within a stipulated timeframe, without awaiting separate court orders for each URL.
- Strengthen coordination between the judiciary, law‑enforcement agencies, and tech firms to trace the original uploader and pursue criminal contempt where appropriate.
- Conduct awareness programmes for political parties and media personnel on the legal ramifications of recording judicial proceedings.
These measures aim to preserve the dignity of the courts while respecting the digital rights of citizens, a balance central to India’s democratic framework.