The judicial intervention highlights a growing friction between digital dissemination and legal protocols. During the proceedings, Meta informed the court that it had already acted upon several URLs flagged by the High Court's Registrar General. Conversely, Google contended that certain YouTube links remained active as they did not appear to contain recordings of the actual proceedings, a claim vehemently contested by the petitioner, Vaibhav Singh. Unmoved by these technical defenses, the bench ordered Google to take down specific links and file a clarifying affidavit regarding its position. The court further mandated that if similar content surfaces on X, the platform must ensure its swift removal. Notices have been issued to multiple respondents, including Kejriwal, the social media intermediaries, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, with the court specifically citing the IT Rules, 2021, which obligate intermediaries to prevent the hosting of unlawful content.
The legal battle centers on events from April 13, where proceedings regarding a recusal application were allegedly recorded and distributed in violation of established video conferencing rules. Counsel for the petitioner argued that selective clips were strategically shared to scandalize the judiciary and bolster a specific political narrative. While Meta indicated it could provide basic subscriber information and IP logs to identify original uploaders, Google maintained that the act of recording occurs outside its platform's direct control. The bench, however, questioned why intermediaries could not act more proactively in the larger interest of the institution, emphasizing that material violating the law should not be permitted to circulate freely.
Despite arguments from the platforms citing the technical challenges of filtering content without specific URLs—referencing the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal v Union of India—the High Court underscored that the unauthorized dissemination of court proceedings remains strictly barred. This ruling marks a significant moment in the regulation of virtual hearing systems, sending a clear message that the misuse of digital access to the judiciary will not be tolerated. By listing the matter for further hearing on July 6, the court has set a precedent for protecting the institutional integrity of the legal system against the tide of unauthorized social media exploitation
About The Author
Comment List