The Delhi High Court ordered the removal of a video recording of court proceedings involving Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case from social media platforms.
The video features Arvind Kejriwal, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor, addressing a trial court.
High Court’s Directions
A division bench comprising justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Amit Sharma issued notices to six individuals, including Sunita Kejriwal, and social media intermediaries X (formerly known as Twitter), Meta, and YouTube. The notices were issued in response to a petition alleging violation of the video conferencing (VC) rules of the Delhi High Court.
“Prima facie it is observed that the court proceeding recording is violative of Rule 3(vi) of Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2021 and cannot be permitted to remain in public domain,” the court stated in its six-page decision.
The high court ordered the social media intermediaries to immediately remove the audio or video recordings from their respective platforms.
During the hearing, the bench directed that the respondents, including the six individuals, remove the content from social media platforms.
However, the order posted on the court’s website stated that “the social media platforms namely X (formerly ‘Twitter’), Meta (formerly ‘Facebook’), Instagram, and YouTube are hereby directed to remove forthwith the audio/video recording from their respective platforms”.
The court also mentioned a list of URLs to be removed and stated that the audio/video should not be re-uploaded on their platforms until further orders.
The court issued an ex parte ad interim order and scheduled a hearing on July 9.
“Notice of the petition be issued to other respondents 1–7, to be served via ordinary post and electronic mode, returnable for the next date of hearing. “The order shall be communicated to the respondent(s) within 48 hours,” the bench stated.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by lawyer Vaibhav Singh.
Prohibition
Singh claimed that when Arvind Kejriwal was brought before a trial court on March 28 following his arrest in the Delhi excise policy case, he chose to address the court in person, and the video recording of the proceedings was posted on social media platforms, which is prohibited by the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021.
The Rules prohibit any person or entity from recording the proceedings without permission.
Sunita Kejriwal and others allegedly reposted the video.
The petitioner informed the court that YouTube had sent an email indicating that the content on its platform had been deleted.
In the public interest litigation (PIL), the petitioner requested the formation of a SIT to investigate and file a FIR against the alleged conspiracy to record and share audio and video of court proceedings, putting the trial court judge’s life at risk.
Allegations of Malicious Intent
“Several members of the Aam Aadmi Party, including members of various other opposition parties, have intentionally and deliberately and with wilful intention to malign and manipulate the court proceedings done the audio and video recording of the court proceedings and circulated on social media platforms,” the motion stated.
It also requested that a thorough investigation be conducted to determine who was responsible for recording and sharing audio and video recordings of court proceedings.
The motion was to “punish the alleged contemnor as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and impose strict penalties on the individuals found guilty of violation of VC Rules 2021 of this Hon’ble court, as per the provisions specified in law” .
The petition urged the court to issue appropriate directives to social media platforms to prevent the recurrence of such unauthorised recordings and their subsequent dissemination, as well as impose penalties on any individual or entity that fails to comply with the directions.
Arvind Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 in a money laundering case stemming from the Delhi excise policy’scam’ and is being held in Tihar jail under judicial custody.
