The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police and social media platforms to immediately remove video recordings of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s personal arguments made before the court in the excise policy case. A Bench comprising Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Amit Sharma issued the order after noting that the unauthorized recording and circulation of court proceedings violate the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2021, which strictly prohibit the recording or broadcasting of judicial proceedings without prior permission.
The matter was brought to the Court’s attention through a petition alleging that certain social media handles and political workers had shared clips of Kejriwal’s address to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The petitioner argued that these "edited and manipulated" videos were being used to influence public opinion and create a false narrative regarding the ongoing investigation. The Court observed that allowing such unauthorized dissemination compromises the dignity and decorum of the judicial process.
The High Court has ordered the Cyber Cell of the Delhi Police to identify the individuals responsible for the initial leak and ensure that the content is "taken down" across platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and YouTube. The Bench emphasized that while transparency is essential, it cannot come at the cost of judicial security and the privacy of the proceedings. The Court further warned that any person found re-sharing these unauthorized clips could face proceedings for Contempt of Court.
This directive highlights the growing challenge courts face in the era of digital transparency and "live-tweeting." While some courts in India have moved toward official live-streaming, the Delhi High Court maintains strict control over its video feeds to prevent misinterpretation or the weaponization of courtroom exchanges for political gain. The police have been tasked with submitting a compliance report detailing the number of URLs removed and the actions taken against the violators.
Beyond the immediate removal of the videos, the Court’s stance serves as a precedent for how "courtroom drama" involving high-profile political figures is managed in the digital space. By enforcing the Video Conferencing Rules, the judiciary is asserting its authority to protect the trial environment from external pressures and social media "trials" that often precede actual judicial verdicts.