A Mumbai court has issued a notice to Google, seeking an explanation for the company’s failure to remove a defamatory and obscene video targeting the Dhyan Foundation and its spiritual leader, Yogi Ashwini, from YouTube, despite a prior high court order mandating its removal.
Background of the Case
The Dhyan Foundation, an NGO dedicated to animal welfare, discovered that an unknown individual had uploaded a video containing defamatory and obscene content about the organization and Yogi Ashwini on YouTube. The video, titled “Pakhandi Baba ki Kartut,” was widely shared across social media platforms, causing significant reputational damage to both the NGO and its founder.
High Court Intervention
In response to the defamatory content, the Dhyan Foundation approached the Bombay High Court, which, on March 31, 2024, directed YouTube to remove the objectionable video. However, the NGO later found that the video remained accessible outside India, allowing viewers worldwide to watch it, thereby continuing the harm to their reputation.
Contempt Plea and Court Notice
Frustrated by the lack of compliance, the Dhyan Foundation filed a contempt plea against Google, the parent company of YouTube. The plea accused Google of “intentionally and deliberately” failing to remove the video, thus violating the High Court’s order. The NGO’s lawyer, Raju Gupta, argued that Google was employing delay tactics and seeking adjournments on flimsy grounds, exacerbating the damage to the foundation’s and Yogi Ashwini’s reputations.
Subsequently, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Ballard Estate) A.U. Bahir issued a notice to Google, seeking the company’s response to the allegations. The court also issued a notice to the senior inspector of the local police station, whom the NGO accused of failing to take action to have the video removed. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on January 3, 2025.
Google’s Defense
In its defense, Google cited intermediary protections under the Information Technology Act, arguing that the content in question does not fall under Section 69-A of the Act, which specifies categories for content removal. Google also contended that disputes related to defamation are more appropriately addressed in civil courts rather than criminal courts.
Court’s Response to Google’s Defense
The court dismissed Google’s objections, stating that the Information Technology Act does not explicitly exclude criminal courts from hearing such cases. The court noted, “So far the authorities filed by the respondent are salutary for me. In the said authorities the procedure is mentioned. However, nowhere it is mentioned that the criminal court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the ratio of above said authorities will not bar maintainability of the present application.”
Implications for Digital Platforms
This case underscores the growing legal challenges that digital platforms face concerning content moderation and compliance with local laws. It highlights the responsibilities of tech giants like Google to adhere to judicial directives, especially when dealing with content that can cause reputational harm. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how digital platforms manage and remove defamatory content, balancing intermediary protections with accountability.
Conclusion
The Mumbai court’s notice to Google emphasizes the importance of compliance with judicial orders in the digital age. As the case progresses, it will be crucial to observe how legal frameworks adapt to hold digital platforms accountable while respecting the nuances of intermediary protections. The forthcoming hearing on January 3, 2025, will be pivotal in determining the responsibilities of platforms like YouTube in moderating content that has been deemed defamatory by courts.
