Kerala High Court Rules YouTube Cannot Be Forced to Remove Defamatory Video Without Court Order
The Kerala High Court has ruled that YouTube, as an intermediary, cannot be compelled to remove an allegedly defamatory video without a court order determining its defamatory nature. This decision was based on the landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal v Union of India and a review of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.The Court further emphasized that for content removal under Section 69A of the Act, there must be explicit allegations that the video violates reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), justifying its removal by an intermediary.
Justice T.R. Ravi, in his judgment, stated, “In view of the categoric pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Shreya Singhal v Union of India), the direction sought against respondents 6 and 7 (YouTube) 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. Apart from alleging that the material is defamatory, there is no specific allegation that it amounts to incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the earlier mentioned aspects like sovereignty and interest of India, etc.”
The case arose when the petitioner filed a complaint regarding a video on YouTube, claiming it defamed the Marthoma community and its Bishop. The petitioner argued that the video was scandalous and could potentially disrupt public order. He had approached the Resident Grievance Officer for YouTube under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and sought a direction to remove the video, but faced inaction. The petitioner contended that YouTube, as a social media intermediary, failed to regulate the uploaded content, which allegedly violated user agreements and YouTube's community guidelines. He also argued that the video could have been blocked by the Central Government under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
In its defense, YouTube informed the petitioner that videos could not be removed based on defamation claims alone and reiterated that they would comply with any court order. Citing the Shreya Singhal case, YouTube argued that, as an intermediary, it could not judge the legitimacy of uploaded content.
The Court referred to the Shreya Singhal case and explained that Section 69A is a narrowly defined provision with safeguards. It noted that Section 69A could only be invoked when the central government determines that the video affects India’s sovereignty, integrity, defense, security, foreign relations, public order, or incites cognizable offenses. The Court also stated, “Regarding Section 69A, the Court held that, unlike Section 66A, Section 69A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards, that blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do, that such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and that reasons have to be recorded in writing in the blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court highlighted that Section 79 of the Act provides immunity to intermediaries under certain conditions, and in Shreya Singhal, Section 79(3)(b) was interpreted to mean that intermediaries should only remove third-party content upon receiving a court order or notice from an appropriate government authority. The Court noted, “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.”
Since no court order had been issued declaring the video defamatory, the Court ruled that YouTube could not be ordered to remove the content, and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Aneesh K. Thankachan v Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 36896 OF 2022
Citation: 2024:KER: 90640
Date: December-03-2024
Bench: Justice T.R. Ravi
[Read/Download order]
