Meta, Google tell Delhi HC they cannot proactively monitor unauthorised court hearing clips

New Delhi: Meta and Google have told the Delhi High Court that they cannot proactively monitor, identify and remove unauthorised videos of court proceedings from their platforms without specific URLs or legal directions. The submissions were made in affidavits filed in a petition concerning the recording and circulation of clips from court proceedings held on April 13, when AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal appeared in person in connection with his plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. The petition was filed by lawyer Vaibhav Singh, who alleged that the proceedings were recorded and shared on social media in violation of the Delhi High Court rules. The plea also sought contempt action against Kejriwal, AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, and others for allegedly uploading or sharing the clips. Google LLC, which operates YouTube, and Meta Platforms Inc, which operates Facebook and Instagram, said they are intermediaries and cannot be asked to proactively identify future or unidentified content uploaded by users. The platforms said they can act on specific URLs identified by the petitioner or on directions issued by the court, but opposed a wider direction requiring them to monitor their platforms and prevent such content from resurfacing. The Delhi High Court had earlier directed the removal of posts carrying videos of the court proceedings. The platforms said the content flagged by the petitioner was no longer available, but argued that a broader obligation to identify and remove similar clips in the future would go beyond the legal obligations of intermediaries. Meta said such a direction would be contrary to the framework under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and the due diligence obligations under the IT Rules. It submitted that intermediaries cannot be compelled to proactively monitor user-generated content or decide the legality of content before a judicial determination. Meta also said it could not be required to act as a “super censor” over content uploaded on its platforms, given the volume and scale of posts made daily on Facebook and Instagram. Google took a similar position for YouTube. It said the platform neither owns nor controls user-uploaded videos and cannot know in advance whether a video uploaded by a user is infringing or unlawful. It argued that the uploader alone has specific knowledge of the video being uploaded, while YouTube functions as an intermediary platform. Google also pointed to the scale of YouTube, saying millions of videos are uploaded every hour globally, making proactive monitoring of every video impractical. The case has again brought attention to the limits of intermediary responsibility when unauthorised clips of court proceedings circulate online. The central issue is whether platforms can be directed to act only against identified content after notice, or whether they can be asked to search for and remove future, unidentified clips on their own. A bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora deferred the hearing to August 27 after noting that Kejriwal, Sisodia and some other respondents were yet to be served.