Back
Porn Disrupts Delhi HC Chief Justice VC Hearings Thrice
In a brazen and deeply concerning breach of judicial sanctity, virtual court proceedings before a division bench of the , led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, were disrupted three times on Wednesday when an unidentified user logged in as "Shitjeet Sighn" and screen-shared pornographic content. The intrusions, accompanied by an automated voice declaring a hack from the United States, forced repeated shutdowns of the Cisco Webex platform, highlighting critical vulnerabilities in India's virtual hearing infrastructure. The court administration has lodged a formal complaint with the , signaling the start of a cybercrime investigation into what may be a deliberate security compromise.
This incident not only interrupted hearings on a clutch of and supplementary causes but also reignited debates on the robustness of digital platforms central to post-pandemic justice delivery. As virtual hearings continue to underpin the , legal professionals are left grappling with questions of access controls, participant authentication, and the enforcement of decorum in cyberspace.
The Incident Unfolds
The disruptions occurred during the pre-lunch session as the bench took up its supplementary list. A random participant, masquerading under the provocative username "Shitjeet Sighn" (with reports of another alias "Sridhar Sarnobat"), exploited screen-sharing capabilities—reportedly disabled by default—to broadcast obscene videos. Court staff immediately shut down the VC link upon the first breach.
Undeterred, the intruder reappeared when proceedings resumed shortly after, sharing more explicit material. The platform was again terminated, remaining offline for an extended period. Upon a third attempt to restart, the same user struck once more, this time with an ominous automated message blaring: “This is a hack from the United States. Shut the meeting right now. Never turn it on again. You have been hacked.”
Eyewitness accounts from lawyers and court observers describe a scene of chaos, with the bench dealing with PILs forced into an abrupt lunch recess. The repeated nature of the attacks suggests not mere mischief but a targeted exploitation of platform weaknesses, raising alarms about external actors potentially probing judicial networks.
Court's Swift Response and Lockdown
Court masters and technical staff acted decisively, suspending VC operations and locking participant access post-resumption. Video and audio feeds were disabled to prevent further interference, with proceedings shifted to a highly restricted mode. In the post-lunch session, brought the matter to the bench's attention, describing it as “disconcerting incidents” in “some courts, not just one court.” He emphasized that such events damage the integrity of the sanctity and overall integrity of the institution , urging directions for immediate takedown of any disseminated recordings and government intervention to halt their spread.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya responded administratively, confirming instructions to the . He underscored the legal boundaries: “Administratively I have already instructed the RG and made a request. Under our Rules, this (content) can be displayed only when it is recorded, which is prohibited…… If someone has recorded then only it can be displayed. That is against the Rules. And as per norms, if anything is recorded under the Rules, the authorities will act.” This reflects the bench's dual focus: immediate containment and invocation of rule-based accountability.
Formal Complaint to Cyber Police
The administration wasted no time, filing a complaint with the Delhi Police's IFSO unit—specialized in cybercrimes—and the . A preliminary inquiry is underway to trace the intruder's IP, login credentials, and motives. Investigators will likely examine logs from the Webex platform, which permits entry via email IDs for lawyers, officials, litigants, and observers, provided they remain muted. The breach of screen-sharing restrictions points to either a backend vulnerability or sophisticated phishing.
VC Platform Vulnerabilities Exposed
Hosted on Cisco Webex, Delhi HC's VC system exemplifies the e-Courts initiative's reliance on commercial tools for scalability. Users log in openly for viewing (with court master approval for speaking), but screen-sharing is theoretically locked. Wednesday's events reveal gaps: possibly unpatched software, weak authentication (no mandatory OTP or biometrics noted), or insider facilitation. Legal tech experts anticipate a swift audit, potentially integrating AI-driven anomaly detection or blockchain-verified access.
A Pattern of Disruptions: Past Incidents
This is no isolated episode. Indian courts have faced a crescendo of virtual indecencies:
- ( ) : YouTube channel hacked to promote cryptocurrency, temporarily disabled.
- ( ) : Porn clips broadcast on courtroom displays twice; FIR under IT Act and obscenity laws.
- ( ) : Obscene screen-share halted hearing; cyber complaint, VC suspended.
- ( ) : Litigant joined from toilet, sparking SOP revisions and contempt warnings.
- ( ) : Advocate argued on scooter; decorum emphasized.
These form a "growing crisis," with five major breaches from -2026, underscoring escalating risks as VC normalizes.
Governing Legal Framework
The 's Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 are pivotal. They equate VC to physical proceedings, mandating identical decorum, prohibiting disturbances, offensive conduct, or unauthorized recordings/displays. Violations trigger removal, contempt, or IT Act penalties. Screen-sharing is restricted; breaches invoke and of the . The Swapnil Tripathi v. ( ) judgment bolsters live-streaming for transparency but implicitly demands safeguards.
Legal Ramifications and Analysis
Prosecutors could charge under IT Act for hacking (Sec 43A/66), obscenity ( , ), and potentially sedition if foreign involvement proven. loom if recordings circulate, eroding dignity. For the intruder, extradition may arise if US-linked. Courts must now interpret "proceedings" expansively to cover cyber intrusions, possibly expanding jurisdiction via mutual legal assistance treaties.
Civilly, platform providers like Cisco face liability scrutiny under intermediary guidelines. Lawyers risk indirect contempt via lax security practices in hybrid setups.
Implications for Virtual Justice Delivery
For legal practitioners, expect mandates: mandatory two-factor authentication, role-based access (e.g., observers view-only), AI moderation, and periodic drills. Bar councils may issue advisories on secure logins. Litigants/media benefit from accessibility but at higher scrutiny cost. Nationally, e-Courts Phase III budgets may prioritize cybersecurity, averting trust erosion amid 90%+ virtual adoption in higher judiciary.
This breach tests the balance between openness (per Swapnil Tripathi) and security, potentially slowing digitization if unaddressed.
Looking Ahead: Strengthening Safeguards
Delhi HC's response—lockdowns, complaints, rule invocations—sets a template. Yet, systemic reform beckons: unified national VC standards, ethical hacking audits, inter-agency cyber drills. As ASG Sharma warned, unchecked incidents undermine institutional integrity. For now, the probe's outcomes will shape virtual courts' resilience, ensuring technology amplifies, not assaults, justice.
