Back
Porn Hacker Disrupts Delhi HC Chief Justice Hearing
In a brazen assault on judicial decorum, a virtual court hearing at the
was repeatedly sabotaged on Wednesday when an unidentified intruder, logged in as 'Sh
jit Singh' or 'Shitjeet Sighn', shared pornographic content on screen not once, but at least three times. The Division Bench, comprising
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
and
Justice Tejas Karia
, was midway through proceedings—reviewing a supplementary list of cases—when the explicit material first appeared around
. Court staff promptly shut down the video conferencing (VC) system, but the hacker re-entered upon each restart, forcing successive halts. A chilling audio message echoed:
"This is a hack from the United States. Shut the meeting right now. Never turn it on again. You have been hacked."
** Similar disruptions struck other Delhi HC courtrooms, prompting the court to lodge a formal complaint with the
unit. This incident underscores the precarious cybersecurity landscape of India's judicial transition to hybrid hearings post-COVID.
The breach not only halted justice delivery but ignited calls for robust digital fortifications, with Additional Solicitor General
Chetan Sharma
labeling it a
"disconcerting breach... damaging the sanctity and overall integrity of the institution."
As recordings circulated online despite prohibitions, the event spotlights vulnerabilities in platforms like Cisco Webex and the urgent need for legal professionals to adapt to tech-driven threats.
The Incident Unfolds: A Timeline of Repeated Intrusions
The disruption began innocuously during routine VC proceedings. At approximately , as the bench sifted through cases, the intruder's screen share blasted obscene visuals into the courtroom feed. Court staff reacted instantaneously, terminating the VC link to stem the assault on propriety.
Minutes later, upon restoration, the same user—identifiable by the mocking alias—rejoined and reignited the chaos, replaying the content. The system was shuttered again. Undeterred, the hacker struck a third time post-restart, accompanying the visuals with the fabricated "US hack" audio threat. Each incursion lasted briefly but inflicted lasting embarrassment, with the court muting its own video and audio as a precaution.
By the post-lunch session, measures escalated: the meeting was "locked," barring new entrants without moderator approval. A stern chatbox directive warned participants:
"Please show your name and item no. in which appearing, before your display stack else we will have no other option but to expel such participant."
Sources confirm the VC remained offline for extended periods, derailing scheduled matters.
This was no isolated prank; ASG Sharma revealed it affected "not just one court" but several in the pre-lunch window, amplifying the institutional affront.
Court's Swift Response and Administrative Measures
Chief Justice Upadhyaya wasted no time.
"Administratively, I’ve already instructed the RG (registrar general), we are making a request through the mechanism available for that,"
he assured, signaling engagement of the court's tech and legal apparatus. The administration directed takedown requests under the IT Act and fortified subsequent sessions with locked settings.
Delhi Police sources anticipate a formal probe upon receiving the complaint, potentially invoking cybercrime provisions. The IFSO unit's involvement hints at forensic tracing of IP addresses, login trails, and platform logs from Cisco Webex, which Delhi HC (alongside ) employs.
Understanding Delhi HC's VC Framework
's VC ecosystem, governed by the , and , balances accessibility with control. Open meeting links enable public viewing, distinguishing Participants (advocates, litigants, officials—who may speak/share with permission) from Viewers (journalists, public—who observe only, with sharing disabled absent host elevation).
Yet, the exploit exploited lax entry: anyone with the link could join as a Viewer and potentially share if not policed. Post-incident locks—exclusive to moderators—prevent uninvited guests, a feature underutilized pre-breach. Recording is strictly banned without court nod, yet clips proliferated online, breaching norms and fueling dissemination.
CJ Upadhyaya noted:
"As per the rules, recording is prohibited. As per the norms if anything is being recorded against the rules, then the authorities are [enabled to take action]."
Echoes from Other High Courts
This is not uncharted territory. In
, the
suspended VC and live-streaming across Bengaluru, Dharwad, and Kalaburagi benches after porn intrusions in six halls. Then-CJ
Prasanna B Varale
(now
judge) declared in open court:
"An unfortunate situation has arisen. We are stopping live-streaming and video-conferencing facilities."
filed a cyber complaint, citing
"unknown people... misbehaved and showed obscene visuals."
The court shifted from Jitsi/Zoom to Vconsol with mandatory registrations.
Earlier, in , flagged a semi-naked intruder in Karnataka HC Hall 1, decrying it as " " and demanding evidence collection. Such patterns reveal systemic frailties in India's 25 High Courts' VC pivot.
Legal Recourse: IT Act and Court Rules
ASG Sharma urged directions under Sections 69A (government blocking/dissemination halt) and 79(3)(d) (intermediary due diligence) of the , targeting platforms and rogue content. Offenders risk (computer-related offenses), 67 (obscene material transmission), and allied IPC sections like (obscene acts).
VC Rules violations could trigger contempt; the intruder's screen abuse mimics "interference" punishable thereunder. Police FIR may classify it as hacking under , with international angles if the "US hack" claim holds.
Implications for the Judiciary and Legal Practice
For legal professionals, this mandates vigilance: advocates must verify participant lists, demand locked hearings for sensitive matters, and master platform tools like mute-all or co-host elevations. Firms may invest in secure VPNs for litigants, while bar councils eye tech literacy modules.
Judiciary-wide, it accelerates reforms—e.g., nationwide mandates for biometric logins, AI anomaly detection, or e-Courts Phase III integrations. Public trust hinges on sanctity; unchecked breaches erode confidence in virtual justice, disproportionately hitting remote litigants.
Broader ripples: Heightened scrutiny on Webex/Zoom efficacy vs. indigenous solutions like 's Vidyo. International parallels (e.g., US court Zoombombings) affirm global urgency
Path Forward: Securing Virtual Justice
Delhi HC's response—complaint, locks, IT Act invocation—sets a template, but prophylaxis demands policy overhaul: uniform rules mandating registrations, whitelists, and audit trails across HCs. As hybrid models endure, fortifying the digital courtroom is non-negotiable to preserve justice's hallowed precincts from cyber marauders.
This episode, while disruptive, galvanizes action. Legal stakeholders must pivot from reaction to resilience, ensuring technology amplifies, not undermines, the .
