Update: According to YouTube, the safety of users is a top priority, and they encourage users to flag individual videos using the Help & Safety Tool for review. YouTube also provides an online webform for users to file privacy or defamation complaints, which are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
YouTube says it complies with all local legal obligations and takes local legal considerations into account when evaluating requests related to defamation. In some instances, a court order may be required to proceed with actions.
YouTube said that the identified video has been blocked in India in compliance with local laws. The complainant’s contempt application is currently pending.
It seems Google can’t stay out of the courtroom for long. The tech giant has found itself embroiled in yet another legal battle, this time over its video-sharing platform, YouTube. A Mumbai court has issued a contempt notice against Google CEO Sundar Pichai for the company’s failure to comply with a court order that instructed the removal of a defamatory video titled ‘Pakhandi Baba ki Kartut’. The video, which allegedly targets the Dhyan Foundation—an animal welfare NGO—and its founder, Yogi Ashwini, has become the center of a legal dispute.
On November 21, 2024, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Ballard Pier issued the contempt notice, citing YouTube’s disregard for an earlier Bombay High Court directive from March 31, 2024, which ordered the removal of the controversial video. The Dhyan Foundation has accused YouTube of continuing to host the video on its platform despite the court’s instructions, causing a reputational dent to the organisation and its founder. The video allegedly contains defamatory and obscene content, and the Foundation claims it has significantly damaged their public image.
The legal issue began when the Dhyan Foundation filed a contempt plea in October 2023, accusing Google of ignoring the court order deliberately. According to the Foundation’s lawyer, Raju Gupta, Google has been using delay tactics by seeking adjournments without valid reasons while the reputational damage continues. The company’s response has raised eyebrows, with YouTube invoking its immunity under the Information Technology (IT) Act, arguing that defamation doesn’t fall under the categories of content that can be blocked under Section 69-A of the Act. However, the court rejected these claims, stating that the IT Act doesn’t prevent criminal courts from intervening in such matters. The case is now scheduled for its next hearing on January 3, 2025.
Follow FE Tech Bytes on Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook
