The Delhi High Court on Monday directed social media platforms, including Meta, Google and LinkedIn, to remove videos allegedly targeting Justice Amit Bansal and holding him responsible for the Saket building collapse that claimed six lives.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain heard a contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) against Dr. Kapil Kakar, alleging that videos uploaded by him on various social media platforms scandalised the judiciary and made defamatory allegations against Justice Amit Bansal in connection with the recent Saket building collapse that claimed six lives.
According to the petition, the contemner uploaded a video on June 2, 2026, in which he allegedly attributed responsibility for the collapse to Justice Amit Bansal and stated, “If you ask me, it is the High Court Judge Amit Bansal who is the real criminal behind these unfortunate deaths. You can call it murder also.” The petition contends that the statements were based on a misrepresentation of a judicial order passed by Justice Bansal in proceedings concerning alleged unauthorised construction at the property.
The petitioner relied upon subsequent videos in which Dr Kakar allegedly questioned whether the judge should be jailed or hanged and accused him of maintaining a “quid pro quo” arrangement with corporate entities. The DHCBA submitted that the videos amounted to a deliberate attempt to lower the authority of the Court and interfere with the administration of justice.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate N Hariharan argued that the videos were being circulated across multiple platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, X and LinkedIn, and sought immediate directions for their removal. It was also contended that the videos were being used to promote a web series titled Black Justice, which purportedly claimed to expose corruption within the judicial system.
Taking a serious view of the matter, the Court questioned the responsibility of intermediaries in allowing such content to remain online after it had come to their notice. Observing that the material must be removed immediately, the Court remarked pointing to intermediaries:
“Once you (intermediaries) get to know about something so absurd, why don’t you remove all of them? I am asking them that once it comes to your notice, why is there any embargo that an intermediary is not imposed with responsibility? This is not one case; this is happening daily. What is the responsibility? Not everyone can come to court. They have to work on something; these are coming routinely, which is not the answer. Please remove everything forthwith.”
The Court also observed that intermediaries could not continue hosting such content and indicated that failure to remove it could attract consequences. During the hearing, counsel appearing for Meta Platforms and Google stated that they would comply with the Court’s directions and take down the impugned content. Counsel for LinkedIn also made similar submissions.
The Court further discussed the need to prevent continued circulation of the material and indicated that blocking the concerned social media handle may also be necessary. It was noted that despite service, Dr. Kakar had not appeared before the Court.
The matter is listed before the roster bench