The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the social media platforms to take down content weather video or written, allegedly targeting a sitting judge of the court in connection with the building collapse in south Delhi’s Saket.
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.
The court observed that such content aimed at scandalising the judiciary and could not be allowed to remain online indefinitely.
The building collapse on May 30, 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 ‘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.
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.
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.
