The corridors of the Delhi High Court have witnessed a significant legal development that strikes at the intersection of modern technology, judicial sanctity, and political accountability. As a senior member of the bar, it is imperative to dissect the recent notice issued by the High Court to Arvind Kejriwal, the former Chief Minister of Delhi and National Convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The crux of the matter revolves around the alleged unauthorised circulation of courtroom video recordings—a practice strictly prohibited under the prevailing judicial guidelines and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Amit Sharma, has sought a response from Mr. Kejriwal and other respondents regarding a petition that seeks the initiation of contempt proceedings. This case is not merely about a video clip; it is about the preservation of the “majesty of the law” and the strict adherence to the “Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts” as notified by the Delhi High Court. In an era where viral content often supersedes factual discourse, the judiciary’s intervention marks a critical boundary for digital conduct during legal proceedings.
The Genesis of the Controversy: Proceedings in Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s Court
To understand the gravity of the situation, one must look back at the specific court proceedings that sparked the petition. The videos in question were reportedly recorded during the hearings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was presiding over matters related to the Delhi Excise Policy case. During these sessions, Mr. Kejriwal, who was then in custody, addressed the court directly. The emotional and political weight of his statements was immense, leading to a surge of interest across social media platforms.
However, the legal issue arose when edited clips of these proceedings began appearing on various social media handles, including those associated with the Aam Aadmi Party and Mr. Kejriwal’s personal digital presence. The petitioner, Advocate Shalin Bhasin, alleged that these clips were not only recorded without the court’s permission but were also circulated with the intent to manipulate public opinion and malign the judicial process.
The Petitioner’s Allegations: A Breach of Protocol
The plea filed by Shalin Bhasin asserts that the recording and subsequent distribution of the court’s video conferencing (VC) feed constitutes a direct violation of the ‘Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021’. According to the petitioner, the circulation was a “pre-planned conspiracy” to lower the dignity of the court. The petition emphasizes that while the judiciary is moving toward transparency, such transparency is governed by a strict set of rules to prevent the sensationalism of sensitive legal matters.
The petitioner has specifically pointed out that the videos were shared with hashtags and captions that suggested a bias or served a political narrative, thereby interfering with the administration of justice. In the eyes of the law, when a matter is sub-judice, any attempt to create a parallel “media trial” using unauthorised court footage is viewed with extreme seriousness.
Legal Framework: The Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021
The Delhi High Court, like many other constitutional courts in India, adopted comprehensive rules to govern virtual hearings during and after the pandemic. Rule 3 and Rule 6 of the ‘Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts’ are particularly relevant in this context. These rules stipulate that no person or entity, including the litigants, shall record the proceedings unless specifically authorized by the court.
Furthermore, Rule 3(vi) explicitly prohibits the unauthorized dissemination, storage, or publication of any part of the proceedings. The logic behind this is twofold: first, to protect the privacy and safety of witnesses and lawyers; and second, to ensure that the court’s environment remains focused on legal arguments rather than public performance. By allegedly sharing these clips, the respondents are accused of bypassing the “authorized channel” of judicial communication.
The Distinction Between Live Streaming and Unauthorized Recording
It is a common misconception that because some courts live-stream their proceedings on YouTube, any recording is permissible. As practitioners, we must clarify that live streaming is a controlled process managed by the court’s registry under specific guidelines (as established in the Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India case). Unauthorized “screen grabbing” or recording a VC link provided for a hearing is a breach of the terms of service of the court’s digital infrastructure. It amounts to a breach of trust and a violation of the court’s standing orders.
Contempt of Court: Understanding the Implications
The petition seeks action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In Indian jurisprudence, contempt is categorized into ‘Civil Contempt’ and ‘Criminal Contempt’. The allegations against Mr. Kejriwal lean towards criminal contempt, which involves any act that scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court, or prejudices and interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding.
When a political leader of high stature is involved, the impact of such circulation is amplified. The reach of a tweet or a post from an official handle can influence millions. If such a post contains unauthorized court footage used to build a political narrative, the judiciary views it as an attempt to exert “extra-judicial pressure.” The notice issued by the High Court is a procedural step to allow the respondents to explain their side of the story before the court decides whether a prima facie case for contempt is established.
The Role of Social Media Platforms
Interestingly, the court has also sought responses from social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Meta (Facebook/Instagram). In modern litigation, these platforms are often impleaded as “proforma respondents” to ensure that the allegedly contemptuous content is removed and to trace the origin of the recording. This highlights the growing responsibility of intermediaries in policing content that violates judicial orders.
The Defense Perspective: Freedom of Speech vs. Judicial Discipline
While the court has issued a notice, it is expected that the defense will argue on the grounds of “public interest” and “freedom of expression” under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They might contend that the public has a right to know what their elected representatives say in court. However, as an advocate, I must emphasize that the right to free speech is subject to “reasonable restrictions,” and the “contempt of court” is a specifically mentioned ground for such restrictions in the Constitution.
The defense may also argue regarding the lack of “intent” (mens rea). They might claim that the sharing was done by social media teams without a full understanding of the VC rules. However, under the strict rules of the High Court, ignorance of the law—especially rules specifically governing the forum you are appearing in—is rarely accepted as a valid defense.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s Bench and the Sensitivity of the Case
The fact that these recordings originated from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s court adds another layer of complexity. This bench was dealing with highly sensitive matters involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and allegations of a multi-crore scam. In such high-stakes litigation, the integrity of the record is paramount. Any unauthorized “leak” or “clip” can be taken out of context to suggest a victory or a defeat that has not yet been legally determined.
The Impact on Judicial Transparency
This case will likely set a precedent for how “Open Court” principles are applied in the digital age. While the Indian judiciary is pushing for “Open Courts” to increase accessibility, there is a clear distinction between an “Open Court” and a “Public Spectacle.” If the High Court takes a stringent view, it will reinforce the necessity for all litigants—regardless of their political status—to respect the digital boundaries of the courtroom.
As senior advocates, we often remind our juniors and clients that the courtroom is a place of solemnity. The introduction of cameras and VC links was meant to facilitate justice during a crisis, not to provide fodder for social media reels. The Delhi High Court’s decision to issue this notice sends a stern message to the digital wings of political parties: the court’s process is not a promotional tool.
Procedural Next Steps
Following the notice, Mr. Kejriwal and the other respondents are required to file their affidavits in response. The court will then examine whether the acts described in the petition constitute a “willful disobedience” of the court rules or an act that “tends to interfere” with justice. If the court finds the explanation unsatisfactory, it can frame charges of contempt, which carry the possibility of a fine or imprisonment, or both.
Conclusion: Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Court
The Delhi High Court’s scrutiny of Arvind Kejriwal’s alleged role in circulating courtroom videos is a watershed moment for legal technology in India. It highlights the friction between the viral nature of modern communication and the deliberate, rule-bound nature of the judiciary. Whether this leads to a formal conviction for contempt or a stern warning, the proceedings themselves serve as a vital reminder.
The sanctity of the court is not a relic of the past; it is a functional necessity for the future. As we move toward more digitized legal systems, the rules governing our conduct must be followed with the same rigor as the rules of evidence or procedure. For public figures, the responsibility is even greater, as their actions set the tone for public perception of the law. The legal fraternity awaits the responses with keen interest, as the outcome will undoubtedly shape the guidelines for virtual hearings for years to come.
In the final analysis, the law remains supreme. While technology provides the platform, the legal principles of dignity, decorum, and discipline must remain the guiding lights of our judicial system. The Delhi High Court has, through this notice, reaffirmed that the “courtroom” exists wherever the judge sits—whether in a physical building or a virtual link—and the rules of that room are non-negotiable.
