Back
Bombay High Court Directs X Corp to Delete Video Calling Adar Poonawalla 'Mass Murderer'
In a significant order addressing the limits of on social media, the has directed (formerly ) to take down a video that labels CEO Adar Poonawalla a "mass murderer" over alleged adverse effects of the Covishield vaccine. Justice Gauri Godse also issued for against Yohan Tengra and other defendants for brazenly a .
The Defiance That Triggered the Order
The dispute traces back to a suit filed in by Serum Institute and its CEO, seeking to stop the spread of defamatory content linking the company's COVID-19 vaccine to deaths. On , the High Court passed a detailed restraining Yohan Tengra, his channel ' ', and others from publishing or circulating the objectionable material, and directed them to remove it.
But Tengra did not comply. Instead, on the very night of the order, he uploaded a fresh video declaring he would not obey the court's directions and would continue calling Poonawalla a "mass murderer". The plaintiffs then issued a to , which refused to act, arguing the court order was not specifically addressed to it.
Arguments Over Intermediary Obligations
The plaintiffs, represented by counsel , relied on , arguing that once a court declares content unlawful, the intermediary must remove it upon receiving . They cited decisions in and to support the duty of platforms to act on court orders.
, represented by , countered that it merely provides a platform and is not the originator. Relying on the 's reading of in , it contended that " " means a court order specifically directing the intermediary to remove identified URLs. Any wider direction, it argued, would force intermediaries to become , contrary to the statutory framework.
The Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Godse examined the evolving jurisprudence on . She noted that the in Shreya Singhal had read down Section 79(3)(b) to mean that an intermediary must act upon receiving "from a court order". Subsequent decisions, including and , have consistently held that directions to intermediaries must be confined to identifiable material and cannot be overly broad.
Applying these principles, the court found that the fresh video uploaded by Tengra – repeating the "mass murderer" allegation and explicitly the court – was clearly identifiable and objectionable. Since had refused to remove it only on the ground of lack of specific direction, the court held it was appropriate to order removal of that specific video. However, the court refused the plaintiffs' wider prayers seeking a blanket direction to to prevent all future defamatory posts or to suspend Tengra's accounts, as such relief would require the intermediary to act as a .
Key Observations
"The fresh video uploaded by Tengra is not only inof the order passed by this Court, but he also states that he will not comply with the directions of the Court and that he would not stop calling Poonawalla 'mass murderer'."
"It is unfortunate that sometimes the parties and their advocates, instead of following the, engage in makingagainst other parties and the judges. Such conduct may result in ignoring the main cause and, in a given case, may defeat a genuine cause. Hence, such conduct needs to be deprecated."
The court also noted that Tengra and his counsel had repeatedly attacked the integrity of the single judge who passed the order, and that proceedings were already pending.
What the Court Ordered
The was . The court directed to take down, remove, or delete the video uploaded by Tengra as described in 17(b). Additionally, were issued to Tengra and defendants 1 to 4, asking why action under should not be initiated for the order. The matter has been listed for further hearing on .
The decision underscores that while intermediaries cannot be turned into , they must comply with specific court orders directing removal of identifiable unlawful content. It also serves as a stern warning against litigants who brazenly flout court injunctions and then seek to hide behind arguments.
