@LiveLawIndia: Delhi High Court to hear PIL s...

Delhi High Court to hear PIL seeking contempt action against Arvind Kejriwal, various AAP leaders and journalist Ravish Kumar for “unauthorizedly” recording and circulating videos of proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on social media.

@ArvindKejriwal

A division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora to hear the matter.

Yesterday, Justice Tejas Karia had recused from hearing the matter.

The plea names the following as respondents: Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Sanjeev Jha, Punardeep Sawhney, Jarnail Singh, Mukesh Ahlawat, Vinayy Mishra as well as INC's Digvijay Singh and journalist Ravish Kumar.

The plea has been filed by Advocate Vaibhav Singh alleging that the politicians have unauthorizely recorded the court proceedingsthat happened on April 13 while Kejriwal was appearing in person seeking recusal of Justice Sharma.

Hearing commences.

Singh is appearing in person along with his counsel.

Counsel for Singh: Petition regarding illegal recording of court proceedings and its circulation. There is VC Rules.

Court: What do the Rules say?

Counsel refers to the Rules: Unless there is express permission of court, there cannot be any recording or any such publication.

Counsel: This is done by other than those participating in VC proceedings, third party. There was proceeding on April 13 with respect to recusal application which was recorded without any authority given by concerned court. Not only recorded but published on social media.

Counsel: Reposting is equivalent to posting.

Counsel refers to posts of certain respondents.

Counsel: These posts are primarily to scandalise court proceedings.

Counsel reads a post of Digvijay Singh.

Court: Your case is it should not be recorded and uploaded according to you.

Counsel: We have also sought to initiate contempt proceedings.

Counsel: Only those parts were shared which serve political agenda. There is a larger conspiracy to share a specific part of proceedings.

Where are the allegations qua the other respondents? Court asks.

Counsel refers to the petition.

Counsel for Meta: Meta controls both Facebook and Instagram.

Counsel for Google also appears, he says Google LLC operates YouTube.

Is it possible to identify who has uploaded for first time? Court

Counsel for Meta: There is no mechanism… urls are already there people are already identified.

Recording we may not be knowing. We want to know will you be able to tell who are the persons who uploaded first?

Counsel for Meta: No.

Counsel for Google: Recording takes place outside our platform.

Court: We are not on recording. We are on uploading.

Meta: We have BSI and IP log. You either give email or mobile no. We keep that information. Whatever system they would have used, it would have come on IP details. That info can come. That we can give.

Meta: When an account is created, either email or mobile no is to be given. For mobile numbers, BSI and IP logs information can come. That we will give. Then the ISPs can be asked to give address based on that.

Google counsel: The Registrar General has intimated 13 URLs to us to be taken down.

Meta counsel: Every time there is illegal content, the agency communicates to the intermediaries.

Court: His prayer is to remove all videos, that you can do? He has given details of url.

Court asks if such direction is issued, will it apply to other similar links as well available on social media platforms.

Counsel for Google: as and when urls are provided.

Why there has to be notified? Why cant you do it yourself? We are concerned with the larger concern of the institution. If we dont control this then…: Justice Rao.

Larger interest of the institution*

The moment i get a url from the ministry, i take it down: Google

Court to ASG Chetan Sharma: We dont everytime a url pops up….

Sharma: Union of India is not a party. Proceedings of HC can be used in this manner, this brings institution to disrepute.

Meta counsel: There are different types of content….There is an obligation under the Rules which I have done. But difficulty is every time a video is circulated, snippet cannot be captured in DNA technology. The mechanism is the law enforcement officer or petitioner can tell us and we can take it down immediately. There are multiple videos, we as intermediaries cannot judge that content.

Court: We are only saying that come back with instructions who has uploaded for first time. That information you will give us.

Anything that violates law cannot be permitted to be circulated. Please see Rule 3(b) of IT Rules: Justice Arora

Counsel for Meta: Today proceedings are broadcasted on Webex. Today we don’t have technology which can differentiate the content. How does technology take into consideration whether this video which is showing a hearing is of HC or SC. Because it cannot differentiate, i cannot till it is brought to my notice.

Counsel for Meta: There are multiple level mechanisms which look at this. The language is “endeavour.” Because it (technology) is not perfect, we can’t do it. We can file a response.

ASG Sharma: We have specific Rules governing HC.

Thats what is bothering us. Whoever access to our system, has to give an undertaking that it will not be misused unauthorizedly: Court

Court to Senior Advocate Arvind Datar: We wanted to know whether it is technically feasible every time that video is resurfaced on social media that person has to inform platforms to remove it? Is there any feature feasible that such videos whenever uploaded are removed.

Datar denies: Shreya Singhal says it has to be through judicial order and i cannot adopt role of a sensor and say it violates VC Rules.

It is not feasible to identify that this particular image violates DHC VC Rules: Datar

Court: When Rules bar even unauthorized recording of proceedings, anything uploaded and transmitted will it be unauthorized?

Datar: Yes. It will be unauthorized. Which is why we took it down when RG told us.

Court: When you have to join VC, you have to click on accept. It contains an undertaking that you will not use is unauthorizedly.

Datar: Prayer to take down has been complied with. He has asked for contempt. I don’t think Facebook can be punished for contempt. We have taken down content the day when Registrar General asked us to.

Datar: Today the larger issue can be taken up any time. But your lordships may take it, we have taken down.

File your counter on what we have expressed: Court

Datar: The same concern has been expressed by many judges that can we pro actively monitor.

Counsel for Singh: The difficulty is even if today it is directed to be taken down, the video resurfaces and again an order will be required.

Datar: The moment the RG told us, we took it down.

We will call for counter affidavit. You (petitioner) will communicate urls to them. If anything is there, you will communicate to them and they will take it down: Court

We will say that these urls of proceedings of April 13 will be taken off: Court

Meta: For Meta, they are taken off.

Court: This petition has been filed by Mr. Vaibhav Singh by stating that he is an advocate registered with BCD and also member of DHCBA.

Court: The petition states that proceedings as held in one of courts of this HC on April 13 have been unauthorizedly recorded, uploaded and transmitted on the social media which is showing this court in bad light. He submits that the uploading of proceedings is prohibited under VC Rules

Court: He has drawn our attention to pleadings made in the petition where according to him there are allegations qua respondents 5-14. It is his case that they have uploaded proceedings of April 13 and even transmitted on social media thereafter. It is his submission that acts of respondents are unauthorized and contrary to VC Rules.

Counsel records appearance for counsels including Datar, who appears for Respondent 2.

Court: Datar says that the urls have been removed. He says it is not technically feasible to identify the offending posts the moment they are surfaced on social media.

Court: He states that he shall file an affidavit in respect of stand of respondent 2. The counsel for respondent 3 Google LLC states that even it has removed posts against the urls as depicted in pages 25,26 which are available on YouTube.

Court: He states that posts against links from YouTube have not been removed as they dont have recording of proceedings. This is contested by petitioner counsel who says even those links have proceedings.

We directed Google to take down proceedings at pages 25,26 of paperbook. It shall also file an affidavit in respect of its stand. Though there is no appearance for X, we note that petitioner has at pages 26 and 27 shown certain links which as per him has recording of proceedings. If that be so, X shall take down proceedings against those links.

Liberty granted to petitioner to serve copy of order for compliance by respondent 4. We issue notice to respondent 4 and other respondents. Additionally, liberty is given to petitioner to inform respondents 2-4 if he finds proceedings on social media, the same be given to them and on receipt, the same shall be taken down: Court

Court: We note that the IT Rules 2021 specifically Rule 3(1)(b) states the following. A perusal would reveal that the intermediary has as an obligation to take reasonable efforts by itself or to cause users of its computer resource to not host, display, upload, publish, transmit, store or share any information that violates law.

Court: We issue notice to MeiTY, through its Secretary for its appearance on the next date of hearing.

Court lists matter for hearing next on July 6.

Hearing ends.