Direction Against YouTube For Removal Of Alleged Objectionable Video Cannot Be Granted So Long As There Are No Court Orders: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court held that the direction against YouTube for removal of an alleged objectionable video cannot be granted so long as there are no Orders of the Court.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition in which it was alleged that a video was uploaded on YouTube which was defamatory to the Marthoma community and its Rev. Bishop.

A Single Bench of Justice T.R. Ravi observed, “In view of the categoric pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the direction sought against respondents 6 and 7 cannot be granted for removal of the alleged objectionable video, so long as there are no orders of the Court finding that the material in question is defamatory. The content that has been uploaded also does not fall within the scope of Section 69A of the Act since it is not alleged to be something affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the defence of India, the security of the State, or friendly relations with foreign States.”

Advocate George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil represented the Petitioner while CGC V. Gireesh Kumar, Government Pleader Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, Senior Advocate Santhosh Mathew, Advocates Riji Rajendran, and Sunil Mathew represented the Respondents.

In this case, the grievance stated in the Writ Petition was that a video was uploaded on YouTube, which was defamatory to the Marthoma community and its Rev. Bishop. It was alleged that the video was scandalous and insulted the entire community, and the same was aimed at creating a rift between the believers and to create a breach of peace and law and order.

The Petitioner preferred a Complaint under Rule 3(2) read with Rule 4(1)(c) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules) before the Resident Grievance Officer for YouTube. According to the Petitioner, the said Complaint was not addressed. Hence, he was before the High Court.

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “It can be seen that the word “actual knowledge” in Section 79(3) (b) is to be understood as “the actual knowledge that a Court order has been passed to expeditiously remove or disable access.”

The Court further said that the Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 has to be read down to mean that the intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge that a Court Order has been passed asking it to expeditiously remove or disable access to certain material must then fail to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material.

“This is for the reason that otherwise it would be very difficult for intermediaries like Google, Facebook, etc. to act when millions of requests are made and the intermediary is then to judge as to which of such requests are legitimate and which are not”, it added.

The Court also noted that, apart from alleging that the material is defamatory, there is no specific allegation that it amounts to incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to the aspects like sovereignty and interest of India, etc.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Aneesh K. Thankachan v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:90640)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, Manu Srinath, Nimesh Thomas, and Sherin Edison.

Respondents: CGC V. Gireesh Kumar, Government Pleader Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, Senior Advocate Santhosh Mathew, Advocates Riji Rajendran, Sunil Mathew, Bharadwajaramasubramaniam R., R.S. Diwaagar, Arun Thomas, Mitha Sudhindran, Bhairavi S.N., and Souradh C. Valson.

Click here to read/download the Judgment