Back
Orders Takedown of Unauthorized Kejriwal Court Videos Amid Recusal Row
In a firm assertion of judicial protocol, the has directed the to immediately remove all unauthorized video recordings circulating online of convenor Arvind Kejriwal arguing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The clips, which went viral shortly after Kejriwal's personal appearance on in a high-stakes recusal plea tied to the long-running Delhi Excise Policy case, have prompted swift enforcement action. Court officials emphasized that such recordings violate the High Court's explicit rules on online hearings, which prohibit any capturing or publishing of proceedings without permission. This development not only underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the sanctity of courtroom processes but also reignites debates on transparency, political litigation, and the challenges of virtual hearings in the social media age.
The order extends to
"everyone on all social media platforms"
involved in recording or sharing the footage, signaling a comprehensive crackdown. As one High Court official told
Bar & Bench
,
"We have taken steps. In the past also we have taken action, and whenever such instances come to our knowledge, we write to them [law enforcement agencies] to take action."
This incident involving Kejriwal is described as just one among several videos the court has flagged, highlighting a pattern of violations that the judiciary is determined to curb.
Background: The Delhi Excise Policy Saga
The controversy stems from the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, a now-scrapped liquor regime accused of fostering cartelisation and monopolisation in the trade. In , Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena lodged a complaint prompting the to register a First Information Report (FIR) alleging irregularities, policy manipulation, and illegal kickbacks to AAP leaders from liquor businesses. The soon launched a parallel probe under the , widening the net to money laundering charges.
A pivotal turn came on , when a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others, ruling no case existed. The CBI challenged this before the , where Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice on , stayed the trial court's directions for departmental action against a CBI officer, and observed that certain trial court findings appeared "erroneous" . This stay and observation fueled recusal applications from Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others, who argued it breached by prejudging without hearing their side.
The case exemplifies the intersection of political vendetta claims and corruption probes, with AAP portraying it as targeted persecution, while agencies insist on evidence-based irregularities.
Kejriwal's Recusal Arguments: Allegations of Bias
On
, Kejriwal personally appeared for over an hour, articulating a
"
."
He critiqued Justice Sharma's
order as hasty—
"5-10 minute ki hearing mein itna bada order (trial court’s) ‘erroneous’ declare kar diya gaya"
—and claimed it virtually declared him "guilty and corrupt," leaving only sentencing. Kejriwal highlighted similar observations in related ED bail matters (Sanjay Singh, K. Kavitha, Amanatullah Khan) and her 2022 order changing a trial judge in an AAP leader's PMLA case.
Escalating, he referenced Justice Sharma's attendance at four events by the
, which he labeled
"an ideological body of the BJP and RSS."
Verbatim: “There’s a lawyer’s body, Adhivakta Parishad. It is an ideological body of the BJP and RSS. Your honour has attended its events four times. The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose and we oppose it openly. This case is political.” Kejriwal urged recusal to ensure impartiality, fearing opposite-ideology prejudice.
Justice Sharma reserved orders, remarking it was the first recusal request in her career. countered vehemently, warning of " " precedents if "unreasonable apprehension" sufficed. He noted judges, including those granting Kejriwal bail, attend ABAP events—essentially bar functions—and urged dismissal with costs plus contempt action for maligning the bench.
The Viral Videos Spark Court Action
Post-hearing, snippets of Kejriwal's impassioned plea flooded platforms like X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and WhatsApp. The quickly took cognizance, directing police for takedowns. Officials confirmed to Bar & Bench that unauthorized recording is "not permitted," with action against all sharers: “everyone on all social media platforms” who has recorded and put such videos online.
This mirrors prior High Court interventions, as the official noted repeated writings to law enforcement. The Kejriwal video is "one of the videos" under scrutiny, part of ongoing vigilance.
Legal Framework: Prohibiting Courtroom Recordings
rules on online hearings—formalized post-COVID—explicitly ban recording, sharing, or publishing proceedings. These stem from broader judicial directives (e.g., Supreme Court guidelines in Swapnil Tripathi v. , 2018, balancing with decorum). Violations undermine witness protection, argument candor, and process integrity, especially in hybrid modes where screensharing risks persist.
Enforcement involves court registries notifying platforms/police under IT Act provisions (e.g., for blocking), with potential contempt under .
Legal Analysis: Recusal, Recordings, and Judicial Integrity
The dual threads—recusal and recordings—intersect on impartiality and process sanctity. Recusal jurisprudence ( Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India , 1987) demands "reasonable apprehension" objectively tested, not litigant dissatisfaction. Kejriwal's ABAP link mirrors cases like but risks politicization; Mehta's "bench shopping" critique aligns with warnings.
On recordings, the order reinforces limits on live-streaming absent rules, prioritizing closed proceedings. In political cases, virality amplifies bias narratives, challenging hybrid hearing protocols amid demands for livestreaming (e.g., SC's 2023 constitutional benches pilot).
Impacts on Legal Practice and Justice System
For practitioners, this mandates client advisories on recording bans, platform compliance training, and recusal drafting precision. Virtual hearings (now routine) demand tech hygiene—watermarks, NDAs. Social media's role escalates intermediary liability, potentially spurring IT Rules amendments.
Politically charged probes like excise (paralleling AAP's ED arrests) test resilience against "bias" ploys. Positive: Bolsters deterrence, inter-agency coordination (court-police-platforms). Concerns: Overreach vs. public right-to-know, especially non-sensitive matters.
Broader: Reinforces judicial insulation in polarized India, but may fuel opacity critiques.
Conclusion: Safeguarding Sanctity Amid Scrutiny
As the excise appeal and recusal order pend, the High Court's video takedown reaffirms unyielding protocol. In an era of instant shares, it reminds the bar: judicial dignity trumps virality. Legal professionals must navigate these tensions, ensuring arguments persuade courts, not clicks. The saga continues, embodying accountability's tightrope in India's vibrant democracy.
