"Fully Justified": Delhi High Court Refuses To Recall Order Blocking Social Media Accounts For Contemptuous Posts Against Sitting Judge
The Bench held that a contemnor's own conduct, publicly threatening to create new handles to re-upload videos alleging judicial corruption, justifies continuation of the blanket restraint, and issued formal show cause notice.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Vikas Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has declined to recall its earlier order blocking all social media accounts of a YouTuber who uploaded videos alleging corruption and collusion between a sitting Judge of the Court and government agencies, holding that the blocking of all the social media accounts of the contemnor is fully justified.
The Court further held that where a contemnor, after being served notice of contempt proceedings, publicly announces his intention to create new accounts to circumvent takedown directions and urges followers to download and preserve the offending material, such conduct independently justifies continuation of a blanket restraint on his social media presence, rejecting the contention that only the specific impugned videos, and not his accounts as a whole, ought to have been blocked.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan in a contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association against Dr. Kapil Kakar and various social media intermediaries, including Meta Platforms Inc., Google LLC, X Corp. and LinkedIn Corporation, observed, “…the blocking of all the social media accounts of the Petitioner is fully justified and does not deserve to be recalled…In view of the content of the impugned videos which are prima facie contemptuous, this Court deems it appropriate to take cognizance u/s 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, a formal show cause notice under Rule 10 of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025 be issued by the Registry upon Respondent No. 1 as to why contempt action be not initiated against him”.
Senior Advocates N. Hariharan, Sacchin Puri, Rakesh Tiku and Prem Lata Bansal appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Varun Pathak appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, Respondent No. 1, describing himself as producer of a web series titled "Black Justice," uploaded videos on June 2, 4 and 5, 2026 containing allegations against a sitting Single Judge of the High Court, including accusations of corruption with MCD lawyers, favouritism towards corporates, and remarks branding the Judge a "murderer" and "habitual offender" in connection with a building collapse in Saket.
On learning of these videos, the Delhi High Court Bar Association filed a criminal contempt petition on 8th June 2026, accompanied by an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking urgent interim directions for removal of the content and blocking of the contemnor's accounts.
By an order dated June 8, 2026, the vacation Bench restrained the intermediary-respondents from hosting or circulating the videos, directed takedown of specified URLs and blocking of Respondent No. 1's accounts within 24 hours, and directed disclosure of subscriber information, recording, in that earlier order, that the material was scandalous and constituted interference in the justice delivery system.
A clarificatory order followed on June 12, 2026, expanding the list of URLs after the contemnor uploaded a further video acknowledging service of the petition and urging followers to download the content before his accounts were blocked. Respondent No. 1 subsequently filed applications seeking recusal of the Bench (later not pressed), recall of the blocking order, and the petitioner filed an application seeking removal of any newly discovered URLs.
Having personally viewed the three videos, the present Bench found the earlier prima facie assessment sound. On the objections regarding procedural compliance, the Court held that the consent of the Standing Counsel (Criminal) under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the supporting affidavit were duly on record, even though not served in the advance copy furnished to the contemnor, and that his failure to appear on the first date of hearing precluded the objection. On the core issue of blocking all accounts rather than merely the offending videos, the Court relied on the contemnor's own conduct, captured in a third video uploaded after service of the petition, where he explicitly anticipated the blocking order and instructed followers to preserve and redistribute the content through alternate accounts.
The application seeking interim removal directions was disposed of, with intermediary-respondents confirming compliance and being directed to report any further URLs to the Registrar General for takedown within 24 hours. The recusal application was dismissed as not pressed. The application seeking recall of the blocking of the contemnor's social media accounts was dismissed. The Court took cognizance under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and directed issuance of a formal show cause notice under Rule 10 of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025. The contemnor was granted two weeks to file a reply affidavit, with the contempt petition and discharge application listed for hearing on September 7, 2026.
Cause Title: Delhi High Court Bar Association v. Dr. Kapil Kakar and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6999-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: N. Hariharan, Sacchin Puri, Rakesh Tiku and Prem Lata Bansal, Senior Advocates.
Respondent: Respondent appeared in person, Varun Pathak, Amee Rana, Akhil Shandilya, Vishwajeet Deshmukh and Tanuj Sharma, Deepak Gogia, Aadhar Nautiyal and Shivangi Kohli, Kapil Wadhwa, Priyanshi Bhageria, Abhishek K. Singh, Advocates.