New Delhi: Delhi High Court Friday directed the removal of additional videos uploaded by Kapil Kakkar, in which he allegedly continued to blame a sitting high court judge for the death of six people in the May 30 building collapse in south Delhi’s Saket.A vacation bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain passed the order after the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) informed the court that Kakkar had uploaded fresh videos despite earlier directions to remove similar content and block his social media accounts.After viewing the videos, the bench expressed concern over the increasing misuse of social media and questioned whether judicial orders were acting as an effective deterrent. “What do we do with social media? In every single case, courts have come down heavily, but is it acting as a deterrent? This is becoming increasingly common. What do you do with individuals who go absolutely haywire? There are so many cases where people have been sent to jail — don’t say we have been kind,” the court remarked.Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for the DHCBA, submitted that despite the high court’s June 8 order, Kakkar uploaded new videos reiterating the same allegations against the judge. He also informed the bench that Kakkar, in the videos, claimed his account had been ordered to be blocked and urged viewers to follow another personal account, while seeking monetary contributions.On June 8, the high court had directed the removal of videos and posts uploaded by Kakkar in which he allegedly described the judge as a “murderer” and sought to attribute responsibility for the collapse to judicial actions. The court had also ordered the blocking of his accounts on X, Meta and YouTube.The directions were issued in a criminal contempt petition filed by the DHCBA, which alleged that Kakkar falsely claimed a judge had dismissed a petition seeking to halt illegal construction at the site due to a nexus with municipal authorities. The association said the court had merely permitted withdrawal of the plea with liberty to file afresh, as the property owner had not been impleaded.
