Delhi High Court Orders Removal of Posts Targeting Sitting Judge Over Saket Building Collapse

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed major social media platforms to remove videos and posts containing allegations against a sitting High Court judge in connection with the recent Saket building collapse, observing that such content appeared aimed at scandalising the judiciary and could not be allowed to remain online indefinitely.

A division bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain passed the direction while hearing a criminal contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association against one Dr. Kapil Kakar, who had uploaded a series of videos and posts following the Saket tragedy.

Delhi High Court Bar Association Files Criminal Contempt Plea Against Kapil Kakar

The May 30, 2026 collapse, which claimed the lives of six young doctors and two software engineers, had triggered widespread outrage and renewed scrutiny of building safety, municipal oversight and regulatory enforcement in the national capital. However, the controversy took a different turn after Kakar published social media content alleging that the disaster was not merely the result of administrative failures but was linked to judicial conduct.

In his posts, Kakar claimed that warnings regarding allegedly unsafe construction activities had previously been brought before the Delhi High Court. He further alleged that a sitting judge had failed to intervene despite being apprised of the situation and suggested that the deaths were attributable not only to civic authorities but also to judicial action.

Some of the videos reportedly went further, describing the judge as the “real criminal” behind the incident and questioning whether he should face imprisonment or even capital punishment.

The Delhi High Court Bar Association subsequently approached the court seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings, contending that the allegations were false, scandalous and amounted to a direct attack on the institution of the judiciary.

Allegations Linking Saket Building Collapse To Sitting High Court Judge

Appearing for the lawyers' body, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan argued that the videos were not expressions of criticism or public debate but constituted a deliberate attempt to lower public confidence in the administration of justice by targeting a sitting constitutional functionary with serious accusations unsupported by any legal finding.

According to the submissions made before the court, the social media campaign portrayed the judge as personally responsible for the deaths resulting from the collapse, despite the absence of any judicial determination supporting such allegations.

Delhi High Court Questions Social Media Platforms Over Contemptuous Content

During the hearing, the bench expressed concern over the growing frequency with which judges are subjected to personal attacks on social media platforms. Justice Krishna questioned whether intermediaries should remain passive when content that is prima facie abusive, defamatory or contemptuous is brought to their notice.

Court's remarks reflected a broader concern that has increasingly occupied judicial forums across the country: the speed with which allegations spread online compared to the slower pace at which courts can examine and respond to them.

Justice Krishna observed that courts are routinely confronted with such situations and noted that not every affected party can be expected to initiate legal proceedings every time objectionable content is circulated online.

Social Media Intermediaries Must Act Against Scandalous Posts

The bench also raised questions about the responsibilities of social media intermediaries once content is flagged and its potentially unlawful nature becomes apparent. Court indicated that merely waiting for a judicial order in every case may not be an adequate response in situations involving serious attacks on institutions and individuals.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma supported the concern, submitting that intermediaries cannot maintain complete distance when objectionable content is brought to their attention. According to the submissions, platforms should act where material is manifestly shocking or unlawful rather than insisting upon prolonged legal processes before taking action.

Court also remarked that public memory is often short-lived and that by the time allegations are disproved, considerable damage may already have been caused.

Meta, Google And LinkedIn Directed To Remove Posts

The counsel appearing for Meta, Google and LinkedIn informed the court that the identified links would be removed and that any additional links brought to their notice would also be acted upon. X Corp, however, was not represented during the proceedings despite having received advance notice.

Directing the platforms to remove the content forthwith, the bench indicated that a detailed order would follow. Court also signalled that it was considering further directions relating to the blocking of Kakar's social media handles.

Also Read| Unfounded Allegations Against Judges Can Erode Public Faith in Judiciary: Supreme Court

Case Title: Delhi High Court Bar Association vs Dr. Kapil Kakar and Others

Hearing Date: June 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain