Delhi High Court Hears PIL on Kejriwal Court Clips; Meta and Google Say They Cannot Proactively Monitor Re-Uploads
Tech Giants Tell Court They Can Remove Specific Unlawful Content Only After Notice or Judicial Direction, Not Continuously Monitor Billions of Posts
In a significant hearing concerning the unauthorized circulation of court proceedings on social media, Meta and Google have informed the Delhi High Court that they cannot proactively monitor or prevent the re-uploading of video clips from the hearing on former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of a judge. The companies submitted that while they comply with valid legal takedown requests, they cannot function as continuous monitors of all user-generated content.
The matter is being heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet P.S. Arora in a public interest litigation filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh. The petition seeks contempt proceedings against several political leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, alleging that they uploaded and circulated unauthorized recordings of court proceedings relating to Kejriwal’s recusal plea in violation of the Delhi High Court Rules.
In affidavits filed before the Court, Google LLC, which operates YouTube, and Meta Platforms Inc., which owns Facebook and Instagram, stated that the specific content identified by the petitioner had already been removed or was no longer available. However, both companies argued that they cannot proactively identify and prevent future uploads of similar content because of the enormous volume of material uploaded every day across their platforms.
Meta told the Court that it cannot act as a “super censor” for billions of users worldwide. The company submitted that under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and the applicable legal framework, intermediary platforms are required to remove unlawful content only after receiving actual knowledge through a court order or a valid direction from a notified government authority. It argued that imposing a proactive monitoring obligation would be legally and technically impracticable.
Google made similar submissions, stating that YouTube receives millions of video uploads every hour from users around the world. The company argued that it is impossible to examine every uploaded video to determine whether it contains portions of court proceedings or violates applicable legal restrictions. According to Google, it acts expeditiously whenever specific URLs or unlawful content are brought to its notice through appropriate legal channels.
The petition arises from the alleged recording and dissemination of proceedings held on 13 April 2026, when Arvind Kejriwal sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing matters connected to the Delhi excise policy case. The petitioner contends that recording and publishing court proceedings without authorization violated the Delhi High Court Rules and undermined the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
During earlier hearings, the Delhi High Court had observed that unauthorized recording, uploading and publication of court proceedings are prohibited under its rules. It had directed various social media intermediaries and search engines to remove identified clips of the hearing and sought responses from the platforms regarding compliance with such directions.
Journalist Ravish Kumar, who is also a respondent in the proceedings, has denied uploading the disputed videos. In his response, he submitted that his post on X merely amounted to journalistic commentary on material that was already in the public domain and did not contain any defamatory remarks against the High Court or the concerned judge.
After taking note of the submissions, the Delhi High Court deferred the matter to 27 August 2026, observing that notices were yet to be served on some of the respondents, including Arvind Kejriwal and other political leaders. The Court is expected to examine broader questions concerning the liability of intermediaries, the enforcement of court rules governing recording of judicial proceedings, and the scope of contempt jurisdiction in cases involving online dissemination of courtroom videos.
