Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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