- Delhi HC orders social media to remove videos of court proceedings involving Kejriwal and others
- Meta has removed flagged URLs; Google must take down specific YouTube links and file an affidavit
- Court issued notices to Kejriwal, social media platforms, and Ministry of Electronics and IT
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed social media platforms to take down posts carrying videos of court proceedings involving Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal and others, in a case linked to a recusal plea before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
A bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order while hearing a PIL that also sought contempt action against Kejriwal, other AAP leaders, and journalist Ravish Kumar for allegedly recording and circulating court proceedings without authorisation.
The court noted submissions by Meta that it had already taken down some URLs flagged by the High Court's Registrar General. However, Google said certain YouTube links had not been removed as they did not appear to contain recordings of proceedings - a claim contested by the petitioner.
Directing further action, the bench ordered Google to take down specific links and file an affidavit clarifying its stand. It also said that if similar content was found on X, the platform must remove it.
The court issued notices to multiple respondents, including Kejriwal and the social media intermediaries, and allowed the petitioner to flag any such content directly to these platforms for prompt removal.
Notice was also issued to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, with the court referring to the IT Rules, 2021, which require intermediaries to make reasonable efforts to prevent unlawful content from being hosted or shared.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 6.
During the hearing, petitioner Vaibhav Singh's counsel argued that court proceedings held on April 13 regarding the recusal application were recorded and circulated on social media without permission, in violation of video conferencing rules. He alleged that selective clips were shared to "scandalise" the judiciary and push a political narrative.
The court also examined whether platforms could identify the original uploaders of the videos. Meta said it could provide basic subscriber information and IP logs, while Google maintained that recordings occur outside its platform.
The bench questioned why intermediaries could not proactively act against such content, stressing the "larger interest of the institution." It observed that material violating the law should not be allowed to circulate.
Counsel for the platforms argued that identifying and filtering such content remains technically challenging without specific URLs or legal orders, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Shreya Singhal v Union of India.
The court, however, underscored that unauthorised recording and dissemination of court proceedings is barred, raising concerns over misuse of virtual hearing systems.
