Delhi HC Orders Takedown of Social Media Videos Alleging Corruption Against Sitting Judge, Issues Contempt Notice
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court directed Meta, Google, X and LinkedIn to remove videos making corruption and criminality allegations against a sitting judge, and listed the contempt petition for July 2026.
On 8 June 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain passed an interim order directing four major social media intermediaries — Meta (Instagram and Facebook), Google (YouTube), X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn — to take down videos and posts uploaded by Respondent No. 1, Dr. Kapil Kakar, which made grave allegations of corruption, collusion, criminality, murder and quid pro quo against a sitting judge of the court. The petition was filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The bench held the material to be prima facie scandalous and contumacious, and directed compliance within 24 hours.
The Petition and the Impugned Material
The Delhi High Court Bar Association filed the contempt petition seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Dr. Kapil Kakar for publishing and circulating videos and posts on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X/Twitter. The publications, according to the petition, made imputations of corruption, collusion, criminality, murder, quid pro quo and improper motives in relation to judicial proceedings and orders passed by the court.
The petition also alleged that Respondent No. 1 used the impugned publications to promote a web series and related promotional material, making the conduct part of a sustained and continuing campaign to scandalise the judiciary and undermine public faith in courts.
Along with the main contempt petition, an application bearing CRL.M.A. 17927/2026 was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking interim directions for removal and takedown of the material, restraint against further publication, preservation of metadata, and disclosure of publication details.
The prayers in the petition included: initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Respondent No. 1 under Sections 2(c) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution; a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to permanently take down, remove or disable access to the impugned videos, posts, reposts and derivative clips; and disclosure of account and uploader details.
The Legal Framework the Bench Applied
The bench acknowledged at the outset that any restraint on publication engages the constitutional guarantee of free speech and must be exercised with caution. It drew on three decisions to frame its approach.
The bench referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, which, though decided in the context of injunctive relief, identified factors relevant to ex parte interim relief: whether irreparable or serious mischief would ensue, whether refusal would result in greater injustice, whether the applicant approached the court in good faith, and whether circumstances warranted immediate intervention.
It also cited the Supreme Court's order in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., SLP (C) No. 6696/2024 decided on 22 March 2024, where the apex court held that an ex parte restraint order ought not to be granted unless the material sought to be restrained is shown to be ex facie malicious or palpably false.
The bench further referred to Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court reiterated that while freedom of speech occupies a cherished position in a democratic society, dignity, reputation and preservation of constitutional institutions are equally significant constitutional values.
Drawing on these principles, the bench drew a clear line: fair criticism of judicial orders and institutions is permissible in law, but allegations attributing corruption, collusion, criminality or improper motives to judges, without any lawful basis, “stand on an altogether different footing and cannot be equated with legitimate criticism.”
Why the Material Was Found Prima Facie Contumacious
On examining the videos, the bench found that the publications made allegations of corruption and collusion between sitting judges of the court and government agencies, and labelled a person as a habitual offender and murderer. The bench described these as “absolutely scandalous, contumacious and a direct interference in the Justice Delivery System.”
The bench also addressed the continuing nature of the harm. The impugned videos and posts remained accessible and capable of further circulation, reposting, clipping, downloading, forwarding and amplification across platforms. Without urgent interim directions, the court found that the contumacious material would continue to cause grave and irreparable injury to the authority of the court and the administration of justice.
Intermediary Liability Under Section 79 of the IT Act
The bench addressed the position of the platform intermediaries — Meta, Google, X and LinkedIn — separately. It referred to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which grants intermediaries exemption from liability in certain cases, but noted that Section 79(3)(b) removes that exemption where, upon receiving actual knowledge that information residing on a resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit an unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material.
The bench held that as soon as an intermediary comes to know that information is being used to commit an unlawful act, it is under an obligation to immediately remove the information, data or communication link and to disable access without vitiating the evidence.
The bench observed that intermediaries “cannot be a silent spectator and wait for the directions from the Courts.” It acknowledged that counsel for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 had appeared on advance notice and undertaken to remove all the material forthwith, and to ensure that any attempt to re-upload similar material by Respondent No. 1 or any other person would be removed immediately.
The Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Chetan Sharma, also submitted that the role of intermediaries in such contexts needed to be addressed and that guidelines were under consideration in a writ petition pending before the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
Directions Issued
The bench issued the following directions:
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and all persons acting for or on their behalf were restrained from uploading, publishing, hosting, communicating, circulating, distributing, posting, tweeting, sharing, reproducing, transmitting or otherwise disseminating the subject videos, or any identical, mirrored, modified, edited, clipped, reproduced, re-uploaded or substantially similar version thereof, on any platform, website, social media account, channel, handle, application, WhatsApp or medium.
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were directed to take down, remove, disable access to and block the URLs containing the subject videos forthwith, and in any case within 24 hours of receipt of the order. The accounts and handles of Respondent No. 1 were also to be blocked immediately until further orders. Specific URLs on YouTube, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn and Google Drive were identified in the order.
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were further directed to file, in a sealed cover or password-protected document, all available basic subscriber information — including names, email addresses, contact numbers, IP logs and registration details — pertaining to accounts responsible for uploading or disseminating the subject videos, within 7 days of receipt of the order.
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were also directed to take down any subsequently discovered URLs containing the subject videos or substantially similar content, upon notification by the Registrar General of the court, within 24 hours of receiving such notification.
Order
Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 4. The bench directed that notice of the contempt petition and the applications be issued to Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 by all permissible modes, returnable before the Roster Bench on 9 July 2026. The matter is listed before the Roster Bench on that date.