Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Madras Single Bench of Justice P. Dhanabal has directed the Union Government to take appropriate action for the removal of specific online video content containing alleged child pornography from YouTube and other platforms. The Court mandated the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to ensure that the said material, identified as part of the teaser of the Tamil movie "Bad Girl," is taken down within a stipulated time frame. The Court held that it was the State’s obligation to act in a timely manner to prevent exposure of children to potentially harmful and obscene content hosted on online platforms. It further instructed relevant statutory commissions to monitor the matter and take appropriate steps in accordance with law to prevent the dissemination of child pornography.

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by three petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus against the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and other authorities. The petitioners included R. Ramkumar, K. Rameshkumar, and Dr. S. Venkatesh. The grievance raised pertained to the alleged presence of child pornographic content in the teaser of the Tamil film "Bad Girl," which was released on January 26, 2025. According to the petitioners, the content was accessible on YouTube, a platform managed by the fifth respondent, Google India Private Limited.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Petrol Pump NOC | Finds Environmental Plea Filed To Serve Rival Business Interest | Imposes ₹50,000 Costs For Suppressing Parallel High Court Proceedings

The third petitioner, described as a Deputy General Manager (Legal) and a parent of school-aged children, stated that he encountered the teaser on YouTube on February 1, 2025. He expressed strong disapproval of the content, alleging it constituted child pornography and involved acts of sexual exploitation and abuse material. The petitioners reported having lodged complaints with various authorities including the National Cyber Crime Portal, the Tamil Nadu Police, and the National Commission for Women.

Despite these representations, they contended that the content remained accessible, constituting a continuing offence. The petitioners submitted that the inaction of the respondents amounted to a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. They specifically cited the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the Information Technology Act, and other relevant criminal statutes as being applicable to the matter.

The prayer of the writ petition sought four primary directions: (i) to direct the Union Government to order the removal of the objectionable content from YouTube and similar online platforms, (ii) to direct the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the National Commission for Women to act in accordance with law, (iii) to compel the Tamil Nadu Police to initiate criminal proceedings against the creators and distributors of the teaser, and (iv) to ensure the overall protection of children from obscene and harmful digital content.

In response, the counsel for respondents 1, 3, and 4 submitted that no formal record of the petitioners' complaints was available. They assured the Court that if any complaints were received, due action would be taken in accordance with law.

Counsel for the fifth respondent, Google India Private Limited, argued that YouTube was not made a party to the proceedings and that the company had no direct role in the publication of the alleged content. On this ground, it was contended that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

Petitioners' counsel responded by asserting that the first respondent, being the competent authority under applicable laws, held the power to issue necessary directives to YouTube for content removal. They maintained that the non-impleadment of YouTube as a party did not detract from the relief sought.

The Court carefully examined the material placed on record, including copies of the teaser screenshots submitted by the petitioners. The Court stated in "The content of the teaser of the Tamil movie Bad Girl contains child pornography and the content discloses exploitation of children (school students shown), depict them in a sexual manner, constituting a violation of Indian laws protecting children from sexual offenses and against wellbeing of the children in particular and society at large."

It further recorded, "There are obscene acts which affect the minds of the teen-age children and anybody can easily access the above said channel and it will spoil the minds of the children, however, it was hosted in the online platform of YouTube, therefore, it will affect the minds of the children."

In recognising the broader societal impact, the Court stated, "The pictures hosted in the YouTube can be accessed by anybody and there are no restriction to the children to access and to see the said pictures. If the children see the said contents of the videos, certainly it will spoil the mind of the children."

In invoking constitutional mandates, the Court cited Article 39(f) and stated, "The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment."

Further referencing Article 45, the Court recorded, "The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years."

In summarising its constitutional and statutory interpretation, the Court held, "The State has to ensure the protection against exploitation and to provide childhood care. The said words 'protection' and 'care' has to be given widest meaning."

On the issue of procedural delay, the Court observed, "Already the petitioners lodged complaint before the concerned authorities, but no action was taken. Immediately after filing this petition and after having knowledge about the facts, the respondents ought to have taken steps without waiting for orders from this Court, but they have not taken any action."

Addressing the matter of non-impleadment of YouTube, the Court stated, "Considering the serious nature of the issue, this Court need not wait till the impleadment of the YouTube as party to the proceedings, since the first respondent is a competent authority, he can issue notice to the concerned YouTube and to take appropriate action to remove the obscene contents and the videos."

Regarding the request for initiation of criminal proceedings, the Court clarified, "As far as taking criminal action is concerned, there are no necessary particulars provided and the proposed accused have to be identified and it is for the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities by following the procedures in accordance with law."

Based on the findings, the Court issued the following specific directions. It stated, "This Court directs the first respondent to take appropriate action to remove the above said obscene contents and videos of the movie 'Bad Girl' hosted in the YouTube either at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87Jp51PF-s or any other address within one month from the date of this order."

The Court additionally directed, "The respondents 3 and 4 also look into the matter and monitor and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to prevent any type of child pornography."

Addressing the procedural autonomy of the authorities, the Court stated, "The first respondent is a competent authority, he can issue notice to the concerned YouTube and to take appropriate action to remove the obscene contents and the videos."

Also Read: Child’s Identity Is Part Of Their Autonomy | Calcutta High Court Directs Fresh Birth Certificate Reflecting Mother’s Surname For Minor Post Divorce

On the matter of criminal investigation, the Court directed the petitioners to follow proper legal procedure: "As far as taking criminal action is concerned, there are no necessary particulars provided and the proposed accused have to be identified and it is for the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities by following the procedures in accordance with law."

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, as stated in the concluding part of the order: "With the above said observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anandhapadmanabhan and Mr. B. Lenin Balu for M/s. Agam Legal

For the Respondents: Mr. K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General; Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor ; Mr. G. Manoj Kumar

Case Title: Ramkumar v. Union of India and Others

Case Number: Writ Petition (MD) No. 5562 of 2025

Bench: Justice P. Dhanabal