Unauthorized Court Recording: Delhi High Court Judge Recuses From PIL Seeking Contempt Against Kejriwal & Others

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to hear a public interest litigation seeking contempt action against Arvind Kejriwal, several leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party, and journalist Ravish Kumar over the alleged unauthorised recording and circulation of court proceedings.

The matter was listed before the Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.

However, shortly after the hearing commenced, the Bench directed that the case be listed before another Bench where Justice Karia is not a member.

The PIL has been filed by Advocate Vaibhav Singh, who appeared in person. The plea seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for allegedly recording and disseminating video clips of proceedings conducted before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on social media.

During the brief hearing, Chief Justice Upadhyaya observed, “This matter will not be listed before this Bench. List tomorrow before a Bench where Justice Tejas Karia is not a part.”

Another Counsel appearing in the matter informed the Court that a related issue; though not identical, was already pending consideration before another Bench of the High Court presided over by Justice Sambre, particularly concerning reposting of such videos.

Taking note of the submission, the Bench reiterated that the matter be placed before a different Bench excluding Justice Karia. “List tomorrow before a Bench of which one of us is not a member,” the Court directed.

The petition specifically refers to the proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, where Kejriwal had appeared in person and argued his application seeking recusal of the judge from hearing appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case. The court had permitted Kejriwal to argue in person, and the hearing reportedly lasted around 45–50 minutes. Notably, the bench on April 13 had reserved the order in the plea.

According to the petitioner, the court proceedings were recorded and subsequently circulated widely on platforms including X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and news channels. He alleges that several political leaders, including those from AAP and other opposition parties, shared and reposted the clips with commentary, thereby violating statutory rules governing court proceedings.

The plea alleges that the circulation of such recordings was not incidental but part of a “pre-planned conspiracy” intended to malign the image of the judiciary, mislead the public, and project the courts as being influenced by political pressure. It further claims that the manner in which the clips went viral suggests coordinated action to damage institutional credibility.

It is to be noted that the High Court, Registrar General Arun Bhardwaj on Singh's complaint had ordered the removal of video recordings of Arvind Kejriwal’s court appearance from social media platforms, triggering a fresh controversy at the intersection of law, politics, and digital dissemination of judicial proceedings.

Additionally, the High Court on April 20, in a 115 page- judgment, rejected Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the excise policy case.

Case Title: Vaibhav Singh v. Delhi High Court & Ors.

Bench: CJ Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Tejas Karia

Hearing Date: April 22, 2026

Tags

Articles

Event Corner

Smart Invester