Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Delhi High Court Orders Immediate Removal of Unauthorized Court Recordings, Citing Violation of Video Conferencing Rules

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Unauthorized audio/video recordings involving Delhi CM Kejriwal must be removed from social media platforms, orders the Court.

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed social media platforms to remove unauthorized audio and video recordings of court proceedings involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The bench, comprising Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Amit Sharma, highlighted the violation of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2021, and emphasized the need to prevent the re-uploading of such content until further orders.

The court noted a prima facie violation of Rule 3(vi) of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2021. The rule explicitly prohibits the unauthorized recording and dissemination of court proceedings. “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 the public domain,” observed the bench.

The court directed major social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), Meta (formerly Facebook), Instagram, and YouTube, to remove the identified recordings immediately. The specific URLs listed in the court order must be taken down, and measures should be implemented to prevent the re-uploading of these recordings until further orders.

The petitioner, advocate Vaibhav Singh, argued that the unauthorized recordings were part of a conspiracy to malign the judiciary and mislead the public. Singh contended that the recordings, which involved a detailed account by CM Kejriwal during his production in court in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy scam, were deliberately circulated on social media to manipulate public perception.

The court granted interim relief to the petitioner, ordering the removal of specific URLs and directing social media platforms to ensure the recordings are not re-uploaded. “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 directed.

Notice of the petition has been issued to the remaining respondents, with instructions for service through ordinary post and electronic mode. The case has been listed for further hearing before the Roster Bench on July 9, 2024.

The court underscored the importance of adhering to established rules governing the conduct of virtual court proceedings. Unauthorized recordings not only violate these rules but also compromise the integrity of the judicial process. By enforcing strict compliance with the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, the court aims to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna remarked, “The unauthorized recording and dissemination of court proceedings are a direct violation of the established rules and undermine the integrity of our judicial process.”

The Delhi High Court’s decision to remove unauthorized court recordings sets a precedent for maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of judicial proceedings in the digital age. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to video conferencing rules and serves as a warning against attempts to manipulate public perception through unauthorized means. The court’s directives are expected to have a lasting impact on how court proceedings are conducted and disseminated in the future.

Date of Decision: June 15, 2024

Vaibhav Singh vs. Sunita Kejriwal & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News