Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by 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.

 

Similar News