Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme 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