In its Counter-Affidavit filed by Google before the Andhra Pradesh High Court opposing the Writ Petition filed by YouTube Channel String against the suspension of its YouTube accounts by Google, the American multinational corporation states that its actions and policies are well-compliant within the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

"...being a platform that caters to a wide variety of persons from all walks of life, the Community Guidelines and Terms of Service are ni simple and plain language. Such Policies include policies on nudity and sexual content, impersonation, misinformation, hate speech, harmful and dangerous content, harassing and cyberbullying, fake engagement, violent or graphic content, spam and deceptive practices, vulgar language, etc. Inter alia, publication of such policies is done in accordance with the law laid down under Rules 3(1)(a) &3(1)(b) of IT Rules, 2021," the Affidavit states.

At the outset, the Affidavit states, "It is pertinent to clarify that the YouTube platform is owned and operated by the Answering Respondent, Google LLC, which is an entity incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware having its registered office at "1600, Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA". The Respondent No. ,1 "Alphabet Inc. and Ors", although the parent company of Respondent No. 2, has no role to play in the operation of Youtube product or present lis. Accordingly, it is most respectfully submitted that Respondent No. 1 may be deleted from the array of parties."

Arguing that the Writ is "not maintainable", Google states that it is a settled law that directions as sought by the Petitioner (which are in the nature of Writ of Mandamus) cannot be issued against a private person. "The Answering Respondent (Google) provides a video streaming platform and certain other web-based services, which cannot be considered akin to a public function or sovereign function of the State. The platform of the Answering Respondent is not a compulsion that is mandated by law to be used. It is one of many such platforms available online, which can be used by a person, after agreeing to the specific terms and policies. As the Hon'ble Courts have consistently opined, users are free to not use such services fi they find the terms not to their liking. It is inconceivable how providing a private service, which is accessible solely at the behest of a user, makes the Answering Respondent amenable to Writ jurisdiction, as alleged or at all," the Affidavit reads.

It argues that merely because Google is under the obligation to comply with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021, does not imply that it is amenable to Writ jurisdiction. It also states that the present dispute is a purely contractual dispute arising out of the enforcement of Google's Terms of Service. It further states that the disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

"The Petitioner created its channels on the YouTube platform, only after contractually agreeing to the YouTube Terms of Service which incorporate the Community Guidelines, platform policies and Privacy Policy. The channels of the Petitioner were also terminated for violation of the said Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. Therefore, it is ex facie evident that the present dispute arises out of the enforcement of the Terms of Service of the Answering Respondent. The Petitioner is well-aware that it has contractually agreed that in case of a dispute arising out of or relating to the Terms or the Service, it will be resolved exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and the Petitioner has consented to the personal jurisdiction of those courts. It is well settled law that the Writ jurisdiction cannot be sustained, in a private contractual dispute. It is equally well-settled that when parties agree to confer exclusive jurisdiction through a clear, unambiguous, and specific clause, such a term would bind both the parties and other Courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction," the Affidavit reads.

The Affidavit also states that the Youtube video titled "Arrest Rathee | Zubair | Barkha NOW! (Greta Toolkit Exposed)" posted on February 24, 2021, was found violating the policy against harassment and cyberbullying. In particular, the content "targeted an individual and expressed a wish for their death.or serious injury" which is not allowed. It states that the Petitioner was notified of the take-down and also urged to revisit the Community Guidelines and review their content keeping the same in mind and a warning was applied to String, and the Petitioner was also informed of the consequences of further violations, including strikes and termination.

Furthermore, the Affidavit states that the video titled "Capital Punishment for ZUBAIR or NUPUR? (Single Handedly Responsible] / Court Systems" posted in July 2022, was also found to be violating the policy against violent or graphic content i.e., the video showed "footage filmed by the perpetrator during a deadly or major violent event, in which weapons, violence or injured victims are visible or audible" which is not allowed.

Additionally, it states that the video titled "Video: Bill Gates EXPOSED | Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine SCAM |#BirthControl" posted in January 2023, was found violating the policy against medical misinformation i.e., the content "claimed that vaccines will cause harmful health effects" and "injecting a vaccine which kils so many people", which is not allowed.

"...the Answering Respondent (Google) has acted in compliance with its policies and Rule 4(8) and that the Channels have been taken down on account of violations of the guidelines and policies," the Affidavit reads.

Pertinently, the Court had on March 28, issued notice to Google, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MiB) in the Writ Petition.

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.

Click here to read/download the Counter-Affidavit


Justice B Krishna MohanAndhra Pradesh High CourtGoogleYoutube

Sukriti Mishra