A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan has upheld the blocking of the contemnor’s social media accounts after finding that videos uploaded by him contained prima facie contemptuous allegations against a sitting Judge of the Court and the Judiciary. The Bench also took cognizance of the contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and directed the Registry to issue a formal show-cause notice as to why contempt action should not be initiated.
The proceedings arose from a contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association in relation to three videos. The Court noted that the videos contained allegations of corruption and collusion between sitting Judges, Government agencies and other entities, besides describing a sitting Judge in terms including real criminal, murderer, habitual offender and alleging that the Judge was favouring big corporates, engaging in quid pro quo and making lawyers withdraw petitions.
The contemnor sought recall of the June 8, 2026 order, particularly the direction blocking all his social media accounts. He argued that the relief was excessively wide and that only the specific impugned videos or content should have been removed or blocked. He also raised objections concerning the absence of the Standing Counsel’s consent and supporting affidavit from the copy of the petition served upon him.
The DHCBA submitted that the requisite consent of Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjay Lao had been obtained and that the supporting affidavit had been filed by its Joint Secretary. The Court, on examining the record, found that both the consent and affidavit had been placed on record and rejected the objections as meritless.
The Court placed particular emphasis on a third video uploaded after the contemnor had received advance service of the contempt petition. In the video, he allegedly asked viewers to download the videos before his accounts were blocked and indicated that he would create new social media accounts from which he would continue uploading content. The Court held that this conduct, coupled with the circumstances of the case, justified the blocking of all his social media accounts.
The Bench reiterated the distinction between legitimate criticism of judicial orders and allegations that attribute corruption, collusion, criminality or improper motives to Judges without lawful basis. Referring to its earlier order, the Court observed that such allegations cannot be equated with fair criticism and had prima facie warranted immediate intervention.
The Court also recorded that the three impugned videos were no longer available online through the contemnor and that Meta Platforms, Google, X Corp and LinkedIn had confirmed that the URLs identified by the DHCBA had been blocked or taken down. It directed that any subsequently discovered URLs containing the same videos or identical, mirrored, modified, edited, clipped, reproduced, re-uploaded or substantially similar content be brought to the Registrar General’s notice for removal within 24 hours.
Finding the videos prima facie contemptuous, the Court took cognizance under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and directed issuance of a show-cause notice under Rule 10 of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025. The contemnor has been given two weeks to file a reply affidavit. The contempt petition and discharge application have been listed for hearing on September 7, 2026 at 2:30 PM.
