Delhi High Court Orders Removal of Social Media Posts Targeting Sitting Judge After Saket Building Collapse

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of social media posts targeting a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court following the May 30, 2026 building collapse in Saket, Delhi, which killed six people. The order came after the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) filed a criminal contempt petition against Dr Kapil Kakar, who had posted videos on social media making allegations against the judge. The case raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech when it comes to the judiciary.

Facts of the Case

On May 30, 2026, a multi-storey building in Saket, Delhi collapsed, killing six people. In the aftermath, Dr Kapil Kakar posted multiple videos on social media platforms making direct allegations against a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. The DHCBA filed a criminal contempt petition before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the videos scandalised the court and interfered with the administration of justice.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain heard the petition and ordered the immediate removal of the social media posts. The court observed that allowing such content to remain accessible would continue to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Criminal Contempt: The Legal Framework

Criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 encompasses three categories: scandalising or tending to scandalise the authority of any court, interfering or tending to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, and obstructing or tending to obstruct the administration of justice. Social media posts that make unsubstantiated allegations against judges can fall within all three categories.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that while fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts is permissible, attacks on judges personally or attempts to undermine the institution of the judiciary cross the line into criminal contempt. This principle applies equally to social media content as to traditional media. The court has the power to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings or to act on petitions filed by bar associations and other stakeholders. For a detailed understanding of how the Supreme Court regulates technology and AI use in courts, including digital content, our earlier analysis provides context.

Free Speech Versus Judicial Dignity

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which include restrictions in relation to contempt of court. The Contempt of Courts Act itself provides a defence of truth under Section 13, but only where the court is satisfied that it is in the public interest and the request for invoking the defence is bona fide.

The Delhi High Court's order reflects the judiciary's approach of balancing these competing interests. The court did not impose a blanket ban on discussion of the Saket building collapse or its legal aspects. Instead, it targeted specific content that made personal allegations against a sitting judge, drawing a clear distinction between legitimate public discourse and scandalous attacks on judicial officers. Those facing similar situations should understand the process of filing a defamation case under the BNS 2023 as an alternative remedy.

Social Media and the Courts

This case adds to a growing body of jurisprudence on how courts deal with social media content that targets the judiciary. Unlike traditional media, social media posts can go viral rapidly, amplifying the potential harm to judicial reputation and public confidence. Courts have increasingly recognised that the speed and reach of social media require prompt judicial intervention to prevent irreparable damage. The Supreme Court's handling of sensitive national security cases involving digital content shows the evolving approach to balancing transparency with institutional integrity.

Key Takeaways

The Delhi High Court's order serves as a reminder that freedom of speech does not extend to making unfounded allegations against sitting judges. Bar associations play a vital role in protecting judicial independence by filing contempt petitions when judges are targeted. Social media users should be aware that posts targeting judges can attract criminal contempt proceedings, with penalties including simple imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to Rs 2,000, or both. The order also highlights the need for responsible discourse on social media, particularly regarding tragic events where ongoing judicial proceedings may be affected by public commentary.