The Andhra Pradesh High Court on March 28, issued notice to Google, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MiB) in a Writ Petition filed by YouTube Channel String against suspension of its YouTube accounts by Google.

While issuing notice in the plea, the Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan directed Google, MeiTY and MiB to file their replies within four weeks.

String filed the Petition through Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha. String is a private limited company registered in Amaravati, and it operates in Indian journalism, holding command over Indian politics and history. It specializes in bringing in-depth news stories and perspectives from the ground across India, in the form of audio-visual and textual content delivered on Internet-enabled devices.

The YouTube channel is handled by Vinodh Kumar. String has also sought compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,100 from Alphabet (Google's parent company) and Google. String reportedly made between Rs. 4 and 5 lakhs each month through its now banned outlets.

"The Petitioner published a video titled "Video: Bill Gates EXPOSED- Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine SCAM I#BirthControl" after which the account faced one week suspension," the plea stated. Subsequently, the video was reposted on “String Hindi,” after which all channels owned by the petitioner were indefinitely terminated.

The plea stated that it has also been prohibited from creating a new channel with the same name and barred from uploading videos. Furthermore, channels that had no connection to the video titled “Video: Bill Gates EXPOSED- Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine SCAM I#BirthControl” were also terminated by YouTube without providing any justification.

It stated that before terminating the channels, Google and YouTube did not provide any warning or notification to the petitioner. "The Respondent No. 1 and 2 tailed its duty to monthly send notification to its subscribers about the guidelines that are to be abided," the plea added.

The petitioner has claimed that it received notice from Google after the removal of his video titled "Arest Rathee | Zubair | Barkha NOW! (Greta Toolkit Exposed)" on the ground that the video violated YouTube's policy prohibiting harassment, threats and cyberbullying. The petitioner says that YouTube removed his video titled "Hang Me If Guilty"- Modi [Godhra Riots] Part 2" citing YouTube's policy against hate speech. The petitioner further says that his video titled "Capital Punishment for Zubair or Nupur? [Single Handedly Responsible]| Court Systems" was removed by YouTube citing a violation of its policy against violence or graphic content.

The petitioner says that it had approached the Grievance Redressal Cell of YouTube and also the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting against the actions of YouTube.

The petitioner has raised the following issues in the Writ Petition:

A. Whether the Channel of Petitioner has the right to present facts and opinion contrary to the views/opinion of the platform?

B. Whether the channels violated Part I Rule 3(1) of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), Rules, 2021?

C. Whether the Petitioner's right to freedom of speech has been violated?

D. Whether the Right to freedom of expression could be curtailed with arbitrary actions of a social media intermediary?

E. Whether the social media intermediary act in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens regarding freedom of speech and expression?

F. Whether a journalist page can be barred and banned because it has presented a controversial view?

G. Whether the views of a group or an individual which is backed by a set of logic can be punished in such manner?

H. Whether Constitutional Court being guardian of the Constitution is responsible to put obligation on the social media intermediary?

I. Whether or not a multinational company has the responsibility to ensure free contents without a bias against a particular ideology?

J. Whether a media entity can be permanently barred from using a social media intermediary?

It is contended in the petition that as a "social media journalist portal", the petitioner often uses terminology which is harsh and critical in nature. The petitioner has asserted that it has only published truth which is backed by solid evidence available in the public domain and also obtained through research and analysis undertaken by the petitioner.

The petitioner has contended that the social media platforms have become anti-freedom of speech and expression and views of the majority of the nation. The petitioner has also pointed out that multinational social media portals take different stands in different nations depending upon their profitability and that they undermine the rights of the people of India.

The petitioner has prayed for a direction to Google and its parent company to restore the YouTube channels of the petitioner and compensation of Rupees Two Crores and One Hundred from Google and its parent company.

Cause Title: String Art Private Limited v. Alphabet Inc and 2 Others [WP/11997/2024]

Justice B Krishna MohanAndhra Pradesh High Court

Sukriti Mishra