New Delhi, 23 April (H.S.):

The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of all videos related to the ongoing hearing in a plea filed by senior advocate Vaibhav Singh, which sought to recuse Justice Swarnakanta Sharma from hearing former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s case. A bench headed by Justice V.

Kameshwara Rao not only ordered the takedown of these clips from social‑media platforms but has also issued a notice to Kejriwal himself in the matter.

The directive came during Thursday’s hearing, when the court took exception to the public dissemination of proceedings from Justice Sharma’s bench. Meta informed the court that it had already taken down certain URLs, while Google told the bench that it had not removed any YouTube links, arguing that those clips did not contain an official recording of the court’s proceedings.

The petitioner challenged this, asserting that the videos in question clearly featured recordings of the judicial hearing. In response, the court instructed Google to ensure the removal of all videos depicting the court’s proceedings.

The case stems from the special trial court’s order acquitting Kejriwal in the Delhi excise‑policy scam matter, against which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved the High Court. The petitioner’s plea targets the Bench hearing the CBI’s challenge — specifically the video recording of the hearing at which Kejriwal’s plea to recuse Justice Sharma was taken up — and opposes the uploading of such footage on platforms like X, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.

The petition alleges that Kejriwal and others, including journalist Ravish Kumar and Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, as well as AAP leaders Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Sanjeev Jha, Puran Deep Sahni, Jarnail Singh, Mukesh Ahlawat and Vinay Mishra, have violated the court’s dignity by circulating edited or selective portions of the hearing.

It claims that these videos were edited or selectively posted to mislead the public, undermine the institution of the judiciary and mount unwarranted pressure on both the court and the central government. The plea also accuses Kejriwal of having made baseless and misleading arguments in court, which were then amplified online.

Earlier, on March 22, then‑hearing judge Justice Tejaswini Karia had recused herself from the case, expressing reservations about proceeding further. However, on April 20, Justice Swarnakanta Sharma’s bench rejected Kejriwal’s own application for recusal, stating that a judge cannot be removed from a case merely on the basis of conjecture or perception of bias.

The current bench’s order to delete social‑media recordings reinforces the court’s stance on preserving the integrity of judicial proceedings and preventing their politicisation through selective online dissemination.

---------------

Hindusthan Samachar / Jun Sarkar