Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, Apr 23: The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed social media platforms to remove videos allegedly showing court proceedings involving Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal and others, observing that unauthorised recording and circulation of such proceedings was impermissible.
A bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued the directions while hearing a public interest litigation that also sought contempt action against Kejriwal, several AAP leaders and journalist Ravish Kumar for allegedly recording and sharing court proceedings without authorisation.
The matter relates to proceedings connected to a recusal plea before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
During the hearing, Meta informed the court that it had already removed some links flagged by the High Court’s Registrar General.
Google, however, submitted that certain YouTube links had not been taken down as they did not appear to contain recordings of the proceedings, a contention disputed by the petitioner.
The court directed Google to remove the specified links and file an affidavit explaining its position. It also said if similar content surfaced on X, it should be removed without delay.
Notices were issued to all respondents, including Kejriwal and the social media intermediaries. The bench also permitted the petitioner to directly flag such content to platforms for prompt removal.
The court further issued notice to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, referring to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which require intermediaries to take reasonable steps to prevent unlawful content from being hosted or circulated.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 6.
During arguments, counsel for petitioner Vaibhav Singh submitted that proceedings held on April 13 were recorded and circulated online without permission, alleging selective clips were used to “scandalise” the judiciary and advance a political narrative.
The bench also examined whether social media platforms could identify original uploaders of the content. While Meta said it could provide basic subscriber details and IP logs, Google maintained such recordings originated outside its platform.
Questioning the role of intermediaries, the court asked why proactive steps could not be taken in the larger interest of the institution, observing that content violating the law should not be allowed to circulate freely.
Counsel appearing for the platforms argued that identifying and removing such material remained technically difficult without specific URLs or formal legal directions, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India.
The court, however, underscored that unauthorised recording and sharing of court proceedings was prohibited and raised concerns over possible misuse of virtual hearing systems.