Delhi HC Orders Takedown of Recusal Hearing Videos, Issues Notice to Kejriwal in Contempt PIL

New Delhi: A division bench of the Delhi High Court directed Meta, Google, and X to remove links containing footage of proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from April 13, while issuing notice to Kejriwal and twelve others, and raising pointed questions on whether social media intermediaries can proactively police recordings of court proceedings.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the takedown of social media posts containing videos of court proceedings in which AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal had appeared in person on April 13 to seek the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the Delhi liquor policy case. The order was passed in a PIL that also seeks contempt action against Kejriwal, several senior AAP and INC leaders, and journalist Ravish Kumar for allegedly recording and circulating the proceedings without authorisation.

The division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the directions after hearing submissions from counsel for petitioner Vaibhav Singh, senior advocates appearing for Meta and Google, and the Additional Solicitor General of India, who, though not a formal party, underscored that the unauthorised use of High Court proceedings brings the institution into disrepute.

The PIL arises from the aftermath of Justice Sharma’s order dated April 20, in which she dismissed recusal applications filed by Kejriwal and other accused in the Delhi liquor policy case. The judge held that the mere fact that her children are empanelled as Central Government panel counsel does not give rise to any presumption of bias against Kejriwal.

“A politician cannot be permitted to judge judicial competence.”
~ Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court (April 20, 2026)

The proceedings of April 13, which the petitioner alleges were unlawfully recorded, relate to the recusal hearing itself—the day Kejriwal appeared in person before Justice Sharma. The petitioner contends that videos of those proceedings were subsequently circulated on social media platforms to “scandalise court proceedings” and convey to the public that the judiciary was functioning at the behest of political parties or under pressure from the Central Government. Singh had first filed a complaint before the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court on April 15, before escalating the matter through the present PIL.

On the question of removal of the videos, the bench noted Meta’s submission that it had already taken down certain URLs communicated by the High Court’s Registrar General. Google, however, submitted that certain YouTube links had not been removed, as the content did not, in its assessment, depict recordings of court proceedings—a position contested by the petitioner’s counsel, who maintained that those links also contained such footage.

Directions issued by the Court:

1.  Google is directed to take down content at pages 25 and 26 of the paperbook and file an affidavit setting out its stand.
2. X (formerly Twitter), though unrepresented, is directed to take down links at pages 26 and 27 of the paperbook if they contain recordings of court proceedings.
3. The petitioner is granted liberty to communicate to Meta, Google, and X any URLs containing such proceedings; intermediaries are directed to take them down upon receipt of such communication.
4. Notice is issued to the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, with the court observing that Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules, 2021 obliges intermediaries to make reasonable efforts to prevent hosting or transmission of unlawful information.
5. Notice is issued to all named respondents, including Kejriwal and the other twelve individuals named in the PIL.

A significant portion of the hearing focused on an exchange between the bench and Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, on whether social media platforms can be required to proactively identify and remove recordings of court proceedings, as opposed to acting only on specific URLs flagged to them.

Datar submitted that current technology does not enable platforms to independently determine whether a video constitutes a recording of High Court or Supreme Court proceedings. The obligation, he argued, is one of “endeavour” rather than strict compliance, and takedown action must be triggered by a judicial order or communication from a law enforcement authority, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. He added that Meta had already complied upon receiving communication from the Registrar General and could not be held in contempt.

The bench appeared unconvinced by the argument that the burden must always lie on an external agency. It observed that participants joining court proceedings via video conferencing are required to give an undertaking not to misuse the proceedings, and questioned whether uploads of such footage could automatically be treated as unauthorised.

“Whoever has access to our system has to give an undertaking that it will not be misused unauthorisedly. Why does there have to be a notification? Why can’t you do it yourself?”
~ Division Bench, Delhi High Court (April 23, 2026)

Google’s counsel stated that content is taken down immediately upon receipt of a URL from the Union of India. Meta’s counsel added that while it retains basic subscriber information and IP log data, which may help identify the original uploader, technology to automatically detect and flag such content does not currently exist.

The ASG, appearing without formal party status, submitted that the High Court’s Video Conferencing Rules govern the recording and use of proceedings, and that misuse undermines the institution. The court noted that Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules cannot permit continued circulation of unlawful content.

Beyond the takedown directions, the PIL seeks broader reliefs, including restraining the named politicians from sharing court proceedings, constituting a Special Investigation Team to probe the alleged conspiracy to mislead the public regarding judicial independence, and directing platforms to implement mechanisms to prevent re-uploading of such recordings. The contempt plea against the respondents, including Kejriwal, senior AAP leaders, and Ravish Kumar, remains pending.

Respondents in the PIL: Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh (AAP), Sanjeev Jha, Punardeep Sawhney, Jarnail Singh, Mukesh Ahlawat, Vinay Mishra, Digvijay Singh, Ravish Kumar (Journalist)

Platforms: Meta Platforms (Facebook, Instagram), Google LLC (YouTube), X Corp (formerly Twitter)

Case Details:
Case Title: Vaibhav Singh v. Delhi High Court & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Filed by: Advocate Vaibhav Singh
Bench (April 23): Justice V. Kameswar Rao & Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date of Filing: April 15, 2026
Next Date of Hearing: July 6, 2026