Back
Asks Centre to Decide Removal of Inflammatory Videos Against Shirdi Sai Baba
The has intervened in a contentious dispute over online content targeting the spiritual leader Shirdi Sai Baba, directing the Union Government's to decide on the removal of allegedly derogatory and inflammatory videos circulated on YouTube and other platforms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the matter on Tuesday, indicated that a detailed order would be passed, specifying a timeline for the GAC to act, likely within 7 to 10 days. The directive came in response to a petition filed by the , the governing body of the Saibaba Samadhi Temple in Shirdi, which has been battling a sustained online campaign that it says distorts the revered saint's image and threatens .
The Trust, through its counsel, argued that despite lodging formal complaints under the , and approaching the GAC and the , no effective relief had been granted. The court's willingness to treat the petition as a representation to the GAC signals a pragmatic approach to expedite the resolution of a matter that has significant implications for religious freedom and online content regulation.
A Coordinated Digital Campaign
The petition alleges that a coordinated effort has been underway since March, with multiple YouTube channels and anonymous accounts publishing content that portrays Sai Baba as "Chand Miyan", a "Jihadi", a British spy, murderer, rapist, dacoit, and religious converter. According to the Trust, these are not genuine historical critiques or fair commentary but unsubstantiated assertions presented as facts, designed to provoke religious hostility. The plea states:
"The false, inflammatory, offensive and objectionable campaign is neither isolated nor accidental. The offending videos and posts have been repeatedly uploaded, mirrored, republished and disseminated through multiple YouTube channels and anonymous or pseudonymous accounts, thereby creating a continuing and concerted digital campaign having the tendency to generate religious hostility and communal disharmony."
The Trust emphasized that new mirror uploads continue to appear even after complaints are lodged, necessitating swift judicial intervention.
Exhausting Grievance Remedies
The Trust's journey through existing redressal mechanisms proved frustrating. It filed detailed complaints with YouTube and Google LLC on , 17, and 19, identifying specific URLs, timestamps, transcripts, and objectionable portions. Despite this, the platforms declined to adjudicate the veracity of the claims, instead directing the Trust to approach the uploaders or obtain a court order. , appearing for the Trust, noted that YouTube's response was a "stereotypical response" that demanded a judicial order for . The Trust subsequently submitted a representation to MeitY on and filed an appeal before the GAC on , but both remained pending.
The petition also highlights systemic flaws in the current grievance mechanism. It challenges the 1,000-character limit for describing complaints and the restriction to submitting only five URLs at a time, arguing that these constraints make it impossible to present lengthy, interconnected grievances involving multiple pieces of content. The Trust contends that these limitations effectively stymie meaningful redressal for victims of coordinated disinformation campaigns.
Court's Directive and Broader Implications
During the hearing, Justice Sharma remarked:
"I will ask them to decide. Let this petition be treated as a representation in addition to the complaints lodged under the IT Rules 2021 and the appeal preferred before the GAC which remains unanswered."
The court's decision to treat the petition as a representation underscores the judiciary's willingness to bridge gaps in administrative remedies, particularly when are at stake. By directing the GAC to make a decision within a specified timeframe, the court is compelling the executive to act promptly, avoiding the delay inherent in lengthy litigation.
The legal basis of the petition rests on , which guarantees and the . The Trust argues that the continued availability of the offensive content directly impinges on the religious sentiments of Sai Baba's followers, who constitute a significant community across India. The court's intervention signals that online platforms cannot evade responsibility by hiding behind territorial or procedural defenses when content is clearly harmful and lacks factual basis.
Potential Impact on Legal Practice
This case is likely to have far-reaching consequences for how courts and regulators handle online content moderation, particularly in cases involving religious figures. For legal practitioners, it underscores the importance of documenting every step of the , as the court's willingness to entertain the petition arose from the Trust's meticulous record of complaints and appeals. The decision also reinforces the principle that remain available even when statutory mechanisms have been exhausted, provided there is evidence of inaction or inadequate relief.
Moreover, the court's directive to the GAC to decide within a fixed timeline may set a precedent for expedited handling of similar grievances. It could prompt the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to revisit the existing IT Rules, particularly the arbitrary character and URL limits that the Trust challenged. The case also highlights the tension between freedom of expression and religious harmony, a balance that courts across jurisdictions are increasingly being called upon to strike in the digital age.
A Wait-and-Watch Approach
As the legal community awaits the detailed order, the immediate effect is a clear message to all stakeholders: platforms must take responsibility for content that incites hatred, and regulators must act decisively. The Trust's victory in securing a judicial nudge is a tactical win, but the substantive outcome—whether the videos will be removed—depends on the GAC's forthcoming decision. For now, the case stands as a testament to the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights in the face of evolving technological challenges.
The is represented by , along with a team of advocates including , , , , , , , , , , and . The matter will be heard next after the GAC's decision is rendered, with the court retaining oversight to ensure compliance.
