On Aaradhya Bachchan’s plea, Delhi HC orders YouTube to take down videos
The Delhi high courts observations came on a plea by 11-year-old Aaradhya Bachchan who complained about a bunch of nine videos in particular that made false claims about her health
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Thursday ordered Google to take down videos on nine YouTube channels and other websites that published false news about the health of Aaradhya Bachchan, daughter of Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan, and told the tech giant that it could not shrug off its responsibility to screen content uploaded to its platforms since it was profiting from it.
“If you are making money out of what you are doing, you have a social responsibility. You can’t allow such things to be posted on your platform. You acknowledge that there are certain things for which you have zero tolerance. Why should this not fall in that category? That means your policy is faulty, “ justice C Hari Shankar told Google LLC after its counsel told the court that they do not screen the videos that are uploaded on their platform.
The observations came on a plea by 11-year-old Aaradhya Bachchan who complained about a bunch of nine videos in particular that made false claims about her health. The high court ordered that the offensive videos be deleted and told the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to block access to all the content uploaded by the nine YouTube channels as well as to any other similar videos or clips containing similar content.
“Every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect whether he/she is child of celebrity or a commoner. Circulating information with respect to the mental and physical health of the child is completely impermissible in law, “ the court observed, underlining that such conduct against a child was “intolerable”.
The judge also directed Google, the parent company of YouTube, to de-list and deactivate the objectionable videos and webpages circulating the false news in this case. But the court made it clear that it would go into the broader issue raised by Aradhaya’s plaint which complained that YouTube did not act on its complaint.
The high court will take up the case next on July 13.
Justice Shankar said the court will have to examine whether Google’s policies are sufficient and in line with the information technology law, adding that the tech giant is duty-bound in law to ensure strict compliance with the entire statutory regime with respect to the intermediaries which govern it and which will include the IT Rules as amended in October 2022.
“You are providing a facility to misinform the public. It’s like saying the Times of India says that I am only providing paper and ink and you can write anything on the paper. You are providing a platform on which misleading information is being provided to the public. How can this be tolerated? justice Shankar said.
“When there is a video saying child is dead and child is alive and kicking... Then you would even allow child pornography? You are saying you are not seeing the content. This is not a defamation issue here. The notice told you there is misleading information on your platform, “ the judge added.
The court directed Google to file a response to the plaint and the interim relief application to set out in detail its policy to demonstrate that it is in compliance of the Information Technology (Intermediary) Rules, 2021 and to show that it has effected change in its policy to bring it in line with the amendment carried out.
The court also directed YouTube to give details of the users from whose account the objectionable content has been posted, including the details of their subscribers.
While observing that a case of ad-interim injunction has been made out in favour of the plaintiff child, the court directed, “Defendants 1-9 (YouTube channels), as also their associates and other acting on their behalf are restrained forthwith from disseminating or further transmitting the videos identified in the plaint”.
“Defendants 1-9 are also restrained from creating publishing, uploading or disseminating of any videos which are identical or similar in content to the videos forming the subject matter of the aforesaid URLs. It is clarified that this would encompass all videos that deal with the physical condition of the plaintiff. In other words, Defendants are completely restrained from disseminating on any platform available across the internet relating to the mental or physical health of the plaintiff, “ the judge said.