All social-media accounts blocked over videos accusing judges of corruption; Delhi HC initiates contempt proceedings

The Delhi High Court Bar Association filed a contempt petition concerning three videos allegedly uploaded by Respondent No. 1, Dr. Kapil Kakar, containing allegations of corruption, collusion, criminality and improper conduct against a sitting Judge of the Delhi High Court, the Judiciary, Government agencies and other persons.

By order dated 8 June 2026, the Court directed the relevant intermediaries to remove or block the impugned videos and the accounts/handles of Respondent No. 1, and restrained further publication or circulation of identical, modified, reproduced or substantially similar content.

A subsequent order dated 12 June 2026 clarified that the restraint applied to Respondent No. 1 and added further URLs for removal.

Respondent No. 1 applied under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking recall of the ex parte order insofar as it blocked all his social-media accounts.

At the hearing, Respondent No. 1 stated that the three videos were no longer available online through him. Meta Platforms Inc., Google LLC, X Corp. and LinkedIn Corporation confirmed that the URLs identified by the Petitioner had been blocked or taken down pursuant to the earlier orders.

Whether the objections regarding absence of the Standing Counsel’s consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and absence of the supporting affidavit in the copy served upon Respondent No. 1 invalidated or otherwise warranted recall of the contempt proceedings.

Whether the direction to block all social-media accounts of Respondent No. 1, in addition to removing the impugned videos, was justified and proportionate.

Whether the impugned videos prima facie constituted contempt by scandalising the Court, undermining confidence in the administration of justice or interfering with judicial functions, warranting cognizance under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Whether further directions were required for removal of subsequently discovered URLs containing identical, modified, mirrored or substantially similar content.

The Court applied Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, under which cognizance of criminal contempt may be taken with the consent of the Advocate-General or the authorised Standing Counsel; the Court held that the requisite consent had been obtained and placed on record.

It applied the constitutional principle that freedom of speech permits fair criticism of judicial orders and institutions, but does not protect unsupported allegations of corruption, collusion, criminality or improper motives that scandalise the Court, undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or interfere with judicial functioning.

The Court also relied on Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the provision invoked in the recall/takedown application.

The Court also relied on Rule 10 of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, for issuance of a formal show-cause notice after the Court took cognizance.

The earlier injunction principles required intermediaries to remove or disable access to unlawful material upon notice and permitted blocking of subsequently discovered URLs containing identical or substantially similar content within the prescribed period.

The Court rejected the procedural objections because the record contained the Standing Counsel’s consent and the supporting affidavit of the DHCBA’s Joint Secretary; the fact that these documents may not have accompanied the advance-service copy did not invalidate the proceedings, particularly when Respondent No. 1 had not appeared on 8 June 2026 to obtain the complete court record.

On the merits, the Court viewed the three videos and found that the first two included repeated allegations that Judges were corrupt, involved in quid pro quo arrangements, favoured corporations, threatened lawyers and engaged in criminal or improper conduct.

The third video demonstrated that Respondent No. 1 knew of the contempt proceedings and threatened to create new accounts and re-upload the material, while urging viewers to download and circulate the videos.

In these circumstances, removal of individual URLs alone was considered insufficient; blocking all accounts was justified to prevent circumvention, re-publication and dissemination of substantially similar content.

Since the material was prima facie contemptuous, the Court considered it appropriate to take cognizance and issue a formal show-cause notice.

The blocking of all social-media accounts of Respondent No. 1 was upheld as justified in light of his stated intention to create new accounts and re-upload the offending content.

The recusal application was dismissed as not pressed.

The Court directed that any further URLs containing the impugned or substantially similar videos be reported to the Registrar General, who would notify the concerned platforms for removal or blocking within 24 hours under the earlier order.

The Court took cognizance of criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, directed issuance of a show-cause notice under Rule 10 of the 2025 Delhi High Court Rules, permitted Respondent No. 1 to file a reply affidavit within two weeks, and listed the contempt petition and discharge application for 7 September 2026.