Tech Giants Resist Court Video Monitoring Proposal
In a significant legal development, technology titans Google and Meta have contested a plea in the Delhi High Court that seeks to obligate social media platforms to actively prevent the dissemination of unauthorized court hearing recordings. This move puts them at odds with a petition advocating for tighter controls on such content.
Legal Challenges Cited by Google
Google has firmly rejected the proposal, arguing its impracticality and legal infeasibility. The company articulated that recordings of court hearings are typically created outside of its platform, YouTube, and it lacks the capability to ascertain whether a video shows court proceedings, whether it was recorded with authorization, or if it breaches any laws, given the varied court rules across India.
“Apart from the specifically identified videos on YouTube, [Google] cannot sift through the millions of videos on its platform and monitor its platform to determine if there are other videos relating to unauthorized court proceedings,” the company stated. It further emphasized that it is only obligated to remove videos that have been specifically identified and adjudicated as illegal by a court.
Meta’s Legal Position
Meta, which manages platforms like Facebook and Instagram, has argued against imposing proactive monitoring duties, citing violations of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and existing Supreme Court rulings. Meta maintains that intermediaries should not independently assess the legality of user-generated content or preemptively search for potentially illegal material.
In their affidavit, Meta highlighted that the IT Rules only require limited proactive technology-based measures, emphasizing that content removal is contingent upon a court or competent authority’s determination of its unlawfulness.
More Read
Context of the Legal Plea
The affidavits from Google and Meta respond to a plea filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh. Singh’s petition seeks actions against individuals who uploaded videos of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal addressing Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s court. Kejriwal had appeared in person in a case seeking the judge’s recusal related to the excise policy.
The Delhi High Court had previously expressed concern over unauthorized recordings of court proceedings, recognizing the broader implications for the judiciary’s integrity. During a recent hearing, the Division Bench, comprising Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, acknowledged the lack of service to several respondents, including Kejriwal and other AAP leaders, leading to an adjournment until August.
Journalist’s Response
Veteran journalist Ravish Kumar, also a respondent, defended his position in response to the petition. He asserted that his flagged post contained no defamatory content against the court or its judges, emphasizing its coverage under journalistic expression and fair comment.
More Read
Kumar clarified that neither he nor any affiliates recorded the court proceedings. Demonstrating his respect for the judicial process, he voluntarily removed the post before any court directive.
