Delhi High Court Judge Recuses from PIL Against AAP Leaders Over Court Video Sharing

Delhi High Court Judge Recuses from PIL Against AAP Leaders Over Court Video Sharing

In a significant development at the Delhi High Court, Justice Tejas Karia on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks contempt action against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia. The PIL alleges that these leaders uploaded and shared unauthorized clips of court proceedings related to the former Chief Minister's arguments in the liquor policy case.

Justice Karia's Recusal and Bench Reassignment

The plea, filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh, was initially listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. However, Justice Karia opted out of the hearing, stating, "This matter will not be heard by this bench. List tomorrow before a bench of which one of us, Justice Tejas Karia, is not a member." This decision came as Justice Karia, a former partner at a leading law firm, had previously represented Meta in several cases before his elevation as a judge, including in a similar plea filed by Singh years ago against the uploading of court hearing videos.

Details of the PIL and Allegations

The latest PIL names AAP leaders as parties, along with the high court administration and social media giants Meta, X, and Google. It argues that the unauthorized sharing of court recordings on social media platforms can undermine the independence of the judiciary and violates high court rules. Specifically, the plea claims that several AAP leaders and members of various opposition parties "intentionally and deliberately recorded and circulated" videos of Kejriwal's appearance before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on April 13. This was allegedly done with the intent to malign the court's image in the public eye.

—

Key Prayers and Actions Sought

The PIL alleges that Kejriwal and his party members hatched a "conspiracy" and employed a "dirty strategy" to record the proceedings. In response, it urges the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the matter and initiate contempt proceedings against all respondents who uploaded, reposted, or forwarded the recording of the court proceedings dated April 13, 2026.

Additionally, the PIL prays for the removal of the contentious content from social media. This follows a complaint filed by Singh with the high court registrar-general on April 15 against the alleged unauthorized recording of court proceedings, highlighting ongoing concerns over judicial integrity and protocol.

Broader Implications and Legal Context

This case underscores the tension between digital media practices and judicial decorum, raising critical questions about the boundaries of sharing court-related content online. The involvement of major social media platforms adds a layer of complexity, as it touches on issues of content moderation and legal accountability in the digital age. The recusal of Justice Karia due to prior professional connections further emphasizes the need for impartiality in such sensitive matters, ensuring that justice is served without any perceived conflicts of interest.