Earlier, the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel was used for live streaming court hearings and public interest cases. However, after the hack, a video titled “Brad Garlinghouse Reacts to SEC’s $2 Billion Fine! XRP Price Prediction” was live-streamed. The video featured Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple Labs, discussing the future price prediction of Ripple’s cryptocurrency XRP (XRP). The Supreme Court’s YouTube channel used to live stream court proceedings, particularly those related to the Constitution Bench. In 2018, under the leadership of then-Chief Justice UU Lalit, the court unanimously decided to live broadcast hearings of the Constitution Bench for public view. Since then, the Supreme Court has live-streamed several public interest litigations and significant cases. This step was taken to enhance the transparency of the judiciary, allowing citizens to directly watch the proceedings of the highest court.

Full details of the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel hacking incident are not yet available. According to The Indian Express, a senior official stated that there were some issues in accessing the channel, after which the Supreme Court’s IT team immediately took the matter seriously and referred it to the National Informatics Centre (NIC). The NIC team is currently investigating the matter to determine how the hacking occurred and how the channel’s security was compromised.

This incident has raised questions about the digital security of important institutions like the Supreme Court. While digital platforms are being used to promote transparency in the judiciary, such incidents expose security vulnerabilities. Strengthening the security of YouTube channels and other digital assets of government institutions has become even more important after this incident.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court declined to intervene. The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, stated that the court cannot interfere in the foreign policy of the country. The court made it clear that any such intervention could have far-reaching implications on India’s international relations. The Chief Justice noted that while the petitioners might have concerns about the conflict in Gaza, directing the government on foreign policy matters could set a dangerous precedent. He explained, “We are not in a position to understand the broader implications of our directives on foreign policy. It is not the court’s role to interfere in such sensitive matters.”

The court further explained that Indian companies involved in the export of arms and military equipment to Israel are bound by contractual obligations. These contracts, the court observed, cannot be easily broken without facing legal consequences. The bench noted that companies could be sued for breaching these agreements if they stop their supplies. The petitioners, represented by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, had argued that Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to genocide. However, the court maintained that it is not the judiciary’s role to interfere in international relations or dictate the country’s foreign policy. The bench used the example of India’s oil imports from Russia, stating, “Would it be proper for the court to direct the government to stop importing oil from Russia or withdraw investments from the Maldives? These are not issues where the court should intervene.”

The PIL was filed by Ashok Kumar Sharma and others, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. The petitioners sought a directive from the court to cancel the licenses of Indian firms exporting arms to Israel, based on allegations of human rights violations and war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. The petition emphasized the moral and ethical responsibility of the Indian government to stop aiding Israel in its military endeavors.

However, the Supreme Court reiterated that matters of foreign policy fall under the purview of the executive, not the judiciary. The court’s decision highlights its reluctance to intervene in decisions that could affect India’s diplomatic relations and contractual obligations with other nations.

Earlier, Kejriwal was arrested in connection with an alleged excise duty scam. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested him from his residence on March 21. Shortly after his arrest, the Delhi High Court rejected his plea for interim protection, which ruled out immediate relief for him.

Following his arrest, on July 12, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in the money laundering case. The Supreme Court directed a larger bench to examine three crucial questions regarding the necessity of Kejriwal’s arrest. This bench will address these questions to determine if his arrest is warranted.

Although the Supreme Court granted interim bail in the money laundering case, Kejriwal remains in judicial custody due to the ongoing CBI case. The CBI has charged him with corruption, and the investigation is still ongoing.

During the next hearing on August 27, the court will review the supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI, which will determine the future course of action in the case. Meanwhile, the extension of Kejriwal’s judicial custody indicates that further investigation and legal proceedings are needed. The proceedings in this case could have significant political and social implications, as it involves a major political party and its leader. Therefore, all eyes are on the upcoming court hearing in this case.