Delhi High Court Orders Removal of Videos Accusing Judge in Saket Collapse

The Delhi High Court has once again intervened in the digital realm to safeguard the integrity of its judiciary. On Friday, the court directed the removal of further videos posted by Dr. Kapil Kakkar, who had accused a sitting High Court judge of responsibility in the tragic Saket building collapse on May 30, which resulted in the loss of six lives.

Contents

The judicial order came from a Division Bench consisting of Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Madhu Jain, following a request by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA). The Bar Association had reported Dr. Kakkar’s continued dissemination of defamatory content online, despite a prior court ruling on June 8 mandating the blocking of his social media accounts and the removal of such videos.

Recurring Defamation: A Challenge for Judicial Authority

Senior Advocate N Hariharan, representing the DHCBA, informed the court that Dr. Kakkar had not only uploaded more videos but had also urged his audience to follow his personal account and solicit donations. This act of defiance prompted the court to question the efficacy of its directives against such individuals.

The Bench remarked on the growing trend of social media misuse, expressing concern over the lack of deterrence. Justice Krishna and Justice Jain noted the increasing frequency of cases involving individuals who blatantly challenge judicial authority online.

On June 8, the court had previously directed the removal of content in which Kakkar labeled a High Court judge a “murderer” and implicated him in the building collapse tragedy. The order also included the blocking of his accounts on platforms such as X, Meta, and YouTube, highlighting the court’s serious stance on protecting the judiciary’s reputation.

This recent order aligns with the High Court’s broader perspective that social media platforms should proactively manage content defaming judges, rather than waiting for court intervention.

Contempt of Court: Legal Proceedings

The DHCBA’s actions against Dr. Kakkar stem from a criminal contempt of court petition, accusing him of making scandalous allegations against a member of the judiciary. The Bar Association argued that Kakkar falsely asserted the judge’s involvement in dismissing a petition about illegal construction due to alleged corruption with municipal authorities. According to the DHCBA, the judge had merely allowed the withdrawal of the petition, allowing for its refiling after addressing procedural issues.

The petition highlighted Kakkar’s damaging rhetoric, which included calling the judge a “murderer” and suggesting a corrupt linkage between the judiciary and corporate interests. Such statements, the DHCBA claimed, were intended to erode public trust in the judicial system and obstruct the course of justice.

As this legal battle unfolds, the Delhi High Court continues to navigate the complex intersection of law and digital expression, striving to uphold judicial dignity while confronting the challenges posed by the modern digital landscape.