Delhi High Court orders removal of Kejriwal hearing videos from social media
Delhi High Court has directed police to remove videos of Arvind Kejriwal’s hearing that were shared on social media. The court also noted unauthorised recording of proceedings and reserved its verdict on Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Sharma
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the police to ensure the removal of all videos circulating on social media that show Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal arguing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma during the hearing of his plea seeking the judge’s recusal from the Delhi Excise Policy case.
The direction came amid controversy over the unauthorised recording and circulation of the Delhi High Court proceedings, with registry officials reportedly stating that action is being initiated against those found to have recorded and uploaded the videos in violation of video conferencing guidelines.
“This is not the first instance where action has been taken for posting recordings of court proceedings on social media. Similar action has been undertaken in the past as well,” officials said.
Earlier in the day, advocate Vaibhav Singh filed a complaint before the Delhi High Court, alleging unauthorised recording and circulation of audio and video from the April 13 proceedings before Justice Sharma.
In his complaint addressed to the Registrar General, Singh alleged that several political leaders, including Kejriwal and other AAP members, “intentionally and deliberately” recorded and circulated the proceedings on various social media platforms in violation of rules.
He contended that the act was in “clear contravention” of the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2021, and the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, which explicitly prohibit any unauthorised recording or publication of court proceedings.
The complaint further alleged that the recordings, which were widely shared across platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, were part of a “pre-planned conspiracy” to malign the image of the judiciary and mislead the public.
“It is requested to set up a detailed inquiry into this matter and take appropriate action against all the persons/political parties for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the rules,” the complaint stated.
The April 13 hearing pertained to Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing cases linked to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy case.
Kejriwal had appeared in person and argued his application for nearly 45 minutes. In his submissions before the Delhi High Court, Kejriwal had asserted that he is “no longer an accused” in the matter, stating that the trial court had discharged him and other accused after finding no material to frame charges.
He argued that Justice Sharma’s subsequent ex parte order partially staying the trial court’s findings gave rise to a “grave and reasonable apprehension” in his mind about receiving a fair hearing.
“When this order came, my heart sank. I had serious doubts whether I would get justice,” Kejriwal told the Delhi High Court, adding that he had also written to Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya — master of the roster — seeking transfer of the case before filing the recusal plea.
He further submitted that the principle governing recusal is based on a litigant’s reasonable apprehension of bias, and not on whether bias actually exists.
Responding to his submissions, Justice Sharma observed that issues relating to the manner or urgency of judicial orders cannot be examined in recusal proceedings and may instead be challenged before the Supreme Court.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the legal threshold for recusal is well-settled and cautioned against making allegations that could undermine the dignity of the judicial process.
“Whether we win or lose, we must remain fair to the court,” the Centre’s second-highest law officer said.
After hearing arguments from all sides, the Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict on Kejriwal’s recusal plea and directed parties to file brief written submissions within the stipulated timeline.
