In a contempt petition filed before the Delhi High Court by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) (petitioner) under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Sections 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents for their scandalous acts intended to lower the authority and to interfere with the administration of justice, a Division Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain restrained respondents 2 to 5 and directed them to take down the scandalous material within 24 hours.
Along with the petition, the DHCBA also filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking interim directions to respondents for the removal of the contemptuous material, restraint against further publication, preservation of metadata, and disclosure of publication details. The respondents had uploaded, circulated, and promoted scandalous and false videos/posts targeting a sitting Judge of the Court and the institution of Judiciary.
Respondent 1 had published and circulated videos/posts on social media platforms including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and X, making grave imputations against the said Judge. The publications alleged corruption, collusion, criminality, murder, and other improper motives in relation to judicial proceedings/orders passed by the Court.
DHCBA submitted that the impugned posts continued to remain accessible and capable of further circulation across social media platforms. It was also alleged that respondent 1 had used the impugned material to promote his web series and promotional material, which demonstrated that the impugned publication formed part of a continued campaign to scandalize the judiciary and undermine public faith in Courts.
The Court stated that freedom of speech does not extend to publications which prima facie scandalise the Court, undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, or interfere with the independent discharge of judicial functions. It was said that fair criticism of judicial orders and institutions is permissible in law, but allegations attributing corruption, collusion, or criminality to Judges, without any lawful basis, stand on a different footing.
It was stated that the videos allegedly uploaded by respondent 1 alleging corruption as well as collusion between sitting Judges of the Court and Government Agencies while labeling a person as a habitual offender and a murderer were nothing but absolutely scandalous as well as a direct interference in the Justice Delivery System. Further, the Court emphasized that social media must be used responsibly and not as instruments to undermine institutions or cause harm to the society.
The Court stated that while individuals who commit such scandalous acts are to be dealt with sternly, the intermediaries can also not be a silent spectator and wait for directions from the Courts. Referring to Section 79 (3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, it was said that as soon as an intermediary receives knowledge that there is an information that is being used to commit an unlawful act, it is under the obligation to immediately remove the information and expeditiously remove or disable access to that material.
As respondents 1 and 4 were absent from the proceedings, the Court restrained respondents 2 to 5 from uploading, publishing, hosting, communicating to the public, circulating, distributing, posting, tweeting the subject videos on any platform, website, social media account, WhatsApp or any other medium. They were also directed to take down, remove, disable access, and block URLs containing the subject videos within 24 hours.
Respondents 2 to 5 were directed to file, in a password protected document, all the available Basic Subscriber Information including names, email addresses, etc. of the users responsible for uploading, publishing, hosting, or disseminating the subject videos within 7 days.
The matter has been listed before the Roster Bench on 09-07-2026.
