On Thursday, the Delhi High Court instructed social media companies to eliminate posts featuring videos from court sessions related to Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal and others. This directive came in connection with a case involving a request for a judge’s recusal before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued the ruling during a public interest litigation hearing. The petition also called for contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, additional AAP officials, and journalist Ravish Kumar for supposedly recording and sharing court activities without permission.
The court acknowledged that Meta had already deleted certain links identified by the High Court’s Registrar General. Google, however, stated that some YouTube videos remained online because they did not seem to include session recordings, a position disputed by the petitioner.
The bench mandated Google to remove designated links and submit an affidavit explaining its position. It further required X to eliminate any comparable material if discovered.
Notices were sent to various parties, including Kejriwal and the social media firms, permitting the petitioner to report such content directly to the platforms for swift action.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology also received a notice, with the court referencing the 2021 IT Rules, which obligate intermediaries to take reasonable steps to block illegal content.
The case is scheduled for the next hearing on July 6.
In the session, the petitioner’s lawyer contended that proceedings on April 13 concerning the recusal request were unlawfully recorded and distributed online, breaching video conferencing guidelines. He claimed edited segments were used to discredit the judiciary and advance a political agenda.
The court explored if platforms could trace the initial uploaders. Meta indicated it could supply subscriber details and IP data, while Google noted that recordings happen externally.
The bench inquired why platforms failed to address such content independently, emphasizing the need to protect institutional integrity. It stressed that unlawful material must not be permitted to spread.
Representatives for the platforms explained that detecting and removing such items is technically difficult without precise links or court directives, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India.
Nevertheless, the court highlighted that unauthorized recording and sharing of judicial proceedings are prohibited, expressing worries about potential abuse of online hearing mechanisms.
