Delhi High Court Orders Removal of Arvind Kejriwal Court Hearing Videos from Social Media

The Delhi High Court, by an interim order dated 15 June 2024, directed X, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to remove identified audio/video recordings of court proceedings in which Arvind Kejriwal had addressed a trial court on 28 March 2024. The Division Bench prima facie found the recording to be contrary to Rule 3(vi) of the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021.

What the Delhi High Court ordered

Advocate Vaibhav Singh filed a public interest petition concerning the circulation of recordings of proceedings held before the Rouse Avenue Courts on 28 March 2024. Arvind Kejriwal, who had been produced before the trial court in connection with the Delhi excise policy case, addressed the court in person during those proceedings.

The petition alleged that audio/video recordings of the hearing were subsequently circulated on social-media platforms and reposted by various accounts, including a repost attributed to Sunita Kejriwal.

At the interim stage, the Division Bench observed that the court-proceeding recording was prima facie in violation of Rule 3(vi) of the Delhi High Court's Video Conferencing Rules, 2021 and could not be permitted to remain in the public domain.

Directions to social-media platforms

The Court directed X (formerly Twitter), Meta/Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to remove the specific audio/video recordings identified in the application. It further directed that substantially identical content should also be taken down if reposted and brought to the notice of counsel appearing for the relevant platform.

Notice was also issued to Sunita Kejriwal, the social-media platforms and other respondents named in the petition.

Rule 3(vi): no unauthorised recording of video-conference proceedings

The High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 continue to regulate video-conference proceedings before courts to which they apply. Rule 3 sets out the general principles governing such proceedings.

Public access is different from a right to record

The Video Conferencing Rules recognise the open-court principle by allowing members of the public to view court hearings conducted through video conferencing, except where proceedings are ordered to be held in camera. That access does not create a general right for viewers or participants to independently record, copy, publish or circulate the proceedings.

The legal distinction is between authorised access to an open judicial proceeding and unauthorised creation or dissemination of a recording of that proceeding.

Why the Court treated the issue seriously

The petitioner's case was that unauthorised recordings of judicial proceedings could affect the dignity and integrity of the judicial process. The interim order focused on compliance with the Video Conferencing Rules rather than deciding the broader political allegations advanced in the petition.

The petitioner had also sought further relief, including investigation into the circumstances in which the recording was made and circulated. The June 2024 order primarily dealt with the immediate application seeking removal of the recordings and prevention of further unauthorised circulation.

Present legal takeaway

Case information

This article summarises the Delhi High Court's interim order dated 15 June 2024 and the presently applicable High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 as available on 5 September 2026. It does not attribute any unproven allegation in the petition as an established fact.