The Delhi High Court has requested the stance of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Sanjay Singh, along with Congress leader Digvijay Singh and others, concerning a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks contempt action against them. The PIL alleges they uploaded and shared video clips from a court hearing concerning a plea by the former Chief Minister seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in a liquor policy case.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that a bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet P.S. Arora issued notices to the individuals named in the petition filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh. The court also directed social media platforms to remove videos of the April 13 hearing, citing that the unauthorised recording and sharing of court proceedings are explicitly prohibited under the high court rules.
Counsel representing Meta Platforms and Google informed the court that the links containing the alleged offending content, as flagged by the petitioner, have already been taken down. The court, however, noted that certain videos reportedly depicting the proceedings of the April 13 hearing were still accessible on the platform X. Consequently, the bench issued a directive stating, “If that be so, respondent no. 4 (X) shall take down those links” immediately upon receipt of the notice.
The court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the counsel for the social media platforms should they discover any further video clips of the proceedings, with the assurance that such content would then be promptly removed. The bench stated, “We issue notice to respondent no. 4 and other respondents. The affidavit shall be filed in four weeks.” Other respondents named in the petition include AAP leaders Sanjeev Jha, Mukesh Ahlawat, Jarnail Singh, and journalist Ravish Kumar. The court also issued a notice to the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, seeking its appearance in the matter, and has listed the case for further hearing on July 6.
During the proceedings, the court expressed concern about the broader implications of such actions, remarking, “We are concerned with the larger interest of the institution. Otherwise, if we don’t control this, it would go (on).” The bench reiterated that the unauthorised recording, uploading, and publishing of court hearings are prohibited under the high court rules and questioned the social media platforms about their ability to ensure the removal of such content after its upload.
Counsel appearing for Meta Platforms clarified that as an intermediary, the company does not operate as a “super censor” nor possesses the technological capability for proactive monitoring of specific content. They stated that the platform acts upon escalation as per legal provisions. The senior counsel for Meta added, “The moment we get to know, we take it down. The moment we got the letter (in this case from the high court administration), we took it down,” asserting that no case for initiating contempt action against the platform had been established.
The court further inquired if the platforms could identify the initial uploader of the videos in question. The counsel for Meta indicated that since the uploader accounts have been identified, they could supply the subscriber information. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the unauthorised recording and circulation of court recordings on social media significantly undermine the independence of the judiciary and are illegal. Seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents, the counsel contended that the videos were edited with the specific intention to “serve the political agenda” of the respondents.
The petition further claimed that several AAP leaders and members of various other opposition parties, including Congress leader Digvijay Singh, had “intentionally and deliberately recorded and circulated” videos of Arvind Kejriwal’s appearance before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on April 13 across social media platforms. The stated intent behind these actions, according to the petition, was to malign the image of the court in the public eye. The PIL alleged that Kejriwal and his party members orchestrated a “conspiracy” and a “dirty strategy” to record the court proceedings, urging the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter and the initiation of contempt proceedings against “all respondents who uploaded, reposted, forwarded the recording of court proceedings dated 13.04.2026.” The PIL also sought the complete removal of the content from social media platforms.
Advocate Vaibhav Singh had previously filed a complaint with the high court registrar general on April 15, detailing the alleged unauthorised recording of court proceedings. This action follows Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s refusal on April 20 to recuse herself from hearing the liquor policy case. At that time, Justice Sharma had stated that a litigant cannot be permitted to judge a judge without substantive material, and judges should not recuse themselves based on a litigant’s unfounded apprehension of bias.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
