Thread Truncated (Cap Enforced)
Only the first 20 tweets are unrolled into slides to ensure reliable PDF exporting and high server performance.
Canvas & Ratio
Choose your destination platform format
Layout Template
Choose a content structure for your slides
Preset Themes
Typography & Sizing
Brand Kit Customization
AGENCYConfigure brand assets for headers & footers
Outro Slide CTA
Customize your closing call-to-action slide
Background Pattern
Build Your Carousel
Drag and drop any post card below onto a slide, or use the quick buttons to insert content/images instantly!
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.