TMT Case Law: Vaibhav Singh vs. Sunita Kejriwal and Ors.

DATE OF ORDER: 15 June 2024

BRIEF FACTS

The given case revolves around the unauthorised recording and dissemination of court proceedings featuring Ex-Chief Minister of Delhi, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The matter was brought before the Delhi High Court as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Vaibhav Singh, an advocate, and a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The petition filed alleged that Sunita Kejriwal, along with several others, violated judicial protocols by recording and sharing a video of Arvind Kejriwal’s courtroom statement on social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.

The petitioner further claimed that the circulation of this video was politically motivated and aimed at distorting the narrative of the judicial proceedings. The petitioner argued that the video, which was shared with hashtags like #MoneyTrailExposedByKejriwal was distributed in violation of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules and was intended to malign the judiciary and mislead the public.

Moreover, upon discovering the dissemination of the video, the petitioner requested social media platforms to remove the content, but only YouTube responded, stating that the video did not violate its community guidelines. Other platforms failed to act, prompting the petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court, seeking an urgent directive for the removal of the video.

KEY ISSUES

The key issues framed were as below:

• Whether the unauthorised recording and dissemination of court proceedings is violative of Rule 3 (vi) of Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2021?

• Whether social media platforms like X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube are under an obligation to not share, forward, repost the audio/video recordings of court proceedings on their platforms?

HIGH COURT’S DECISION

The Delhi High Court, after perusal of facts, 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 the public domain.”

The Court directed social media platforms, including X, Meta, Instagram, and YouTube, to immediately remove the video from their platforms. The order also mandated the prevention of re-uploading the video until further notice.

Further, the Court issued legal notices to Sunita Kejriwal and other respondents for their role in reposting the video.

CONCLUSION

The Delhi High Court’s swift action in this case reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the confidentiality of legal proceedings. The case also highlights the growing challenges posed by digital platforms in regulating content and underscores the need for stronger laws to prevent the misuse of social media. This case sets an important precedent for future instances of unauthorised courtroom recordings, and its final ruling may have lasting implications on the regulation of digital content, media accountability, and the integrity of judicial processes in India. The case raises constitutional questions about freedom of expression versus judicial confidentiality. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it cannot be used as a tool to interfere with judicial proceedings or misrepresent legal facts. The High Court’s order serves as a crucial step in defining the boundaries of digital free speech concerning judicial integrity.

In case of feedback, suggestions, or queries, please reach out to the C&M team on

tmt@chandhiok.com

© 2025 Chandhiok & Mahajan, Advocates and Solicitors

Note: This alert is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.