Back
Orders GAC to Decide on Removing Videos Targeting Shirdi Sai Baba
The has intervened decisively in a fast-moving online content dispute, directing the Centre’s to act on a complaint seeking the removal of allegedly inflammatory and derogatory videos targeting the revered spiritual leader Shirdi Sai Baba. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notices to the , the GAC, and , while listing the matter for further hearing on . The court’s swift action underscores the escalating tension between religious sensitivity and under India’s evolving intermediary framework.
Background of the Dispute
The litigation was initiated by the —the official administrative body of the saint’s Mahasamadhi temple. The Trust discovered a coordinated network of videos and articles published since that contained what it termed “grossly-derogatory, historically-false, inflammatory and communally-provocative allegations” against Shirdi Sai Baba. According to the petition, the content falsely portrayed the saint as a “Jihadi,” a British spy, a murderer, and a religious converter. The Trust argued that these allegations were not mere historical criticism but a deliberate, orchestrated digital campaign designed to generate religious hostility and disrupt .
, representing the Trust, detailed that the offensive material was repeatedly mirrored and republished by anonymous accounts, deliberately evading standard reporting mechanisms. Despite filing detailed complaints under the prescribed by the , refused to take down the content. The platform’s response, as noted in the petition, stated that it was “not in a position to adjudicate upon the veracity of postings” and asked the Trust to either approach the uploaders directly or seek a court order.
The Trust’s Legal Battle and GAC’s Role
After ’s refusal, the Trust escalated the matter to the Grievance Appellate Committee on . The GAC, established by the Centre under the IT Rules to hear appeals against intermediary decisions, passed an order on directing the removal of the offending videos and articles. However, the Trust’s counsel informed the High Court that the entire material had not been taken down; some videos and articles remained accessible. The court was told that the GAC itself had characterized the content as having “the tendency to hurt religious sentiments detrimental to ” and warned that if allowed to continue, it “will soon spread like a pandemic with wide uncontrollable repercussions.”
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed the GAC to consider the Trust’s fresh complaint and to ensure compliance with its earlier order. The court also directed that any further complaints filed by the Trust be addressed by the appropriate authority without delay. The matter was adjourned to September 7 for the next hearing.
Under the IT Rules
The case highlights the limitations of the current , particularly concerning for third-party content. Under , intermediaries must disable access to content that is , harassing, or harmful to public order, provided they receive a court order or a government directive. However, platforms like often decline to adjudicate the factual veracity of religious or historical claims, citing their role as .
The Trust’s experience reflects a broader tension: while the law requires proactive compliance with grievance mechanisms, intermediaries frequently resist takedowns without judicial backing. The ’s intervention effectively by passed this deadlock, placing the onus on the GAC to enforce its own order. For legal professionals, this case serves as a practical example of the operational challenges in enforcing mandates under the IT Rules.
Court’s Intervention and Observations
Justice Sharma’s order was notable for its speed. The High Court had previously given the GAC just seven days to decide the issue of removal, and the committee did act within that timeframe. However, the Trust’s assertion that compliance was incomplete led the court to maintain oversight. The court also directed that if the Trust files any further fresh complaint, the “appropriate authority will look into it”—a clear signal that judicial oversight would continue to ensure effective redressal.
The High Court’s observations implicitly rebuke the platform’s approach of deferring all responsibility to the judiciary. By compelling the GAC to act and by noting the risk of “wide uncontrollable repercussions,” the court reinforced that digital intermediaries cannot ignore their statutory obligations merely because they lack adjudicatory confidence.
Legal Implications for
This case is likely to be cited in future disputes involving religious sensitivity online. The GAC’s own language—describing the content as a potential “pandemic” of communal disharmony—sets a strong standard for evaluating similar material. For lawyers advising clients on takedown requests, the judgment emphasizes the importance of pursuing the GAC route before approaching the court, as the committee’s order carries targeted directive weight.
Additionally, the court’s willingness to issue notices to (’s parent company) signals that foreign-based intermediaries will continue to be held accountable under Indian law. The case also underscores the need for clearer statutory guidelines on what constitutes “inflammatory” religious content, especially when historical figures are involved.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For practitioners in the information technology and constitutional law fields, the judgment offers a roadmap for enforcing content removal when intermediaries deny initial complaints. The sequence—first filing under the IT Rules, then appealing to the GAC, and finally approaching the High Court—is reinforced as the proper channel. The case also demonstrates the court’s willingness to use its to compel administrative bodies to act.
On a broader level, the ’s intervention may influence pending policy discussions around and the proposed . The tension between freedom of speech and religious sensitivity remains a live issue, and the court’s balancing act in this case—ensuring compliance without stifling legitimate discourse—provides a template for future disputes.
Conclusion
The ’s order in the Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust case is a landmark moment in India’s digital content jurisprudence. By directing the GAC to fully execute its own , the court has reaffirmed that platforms cannot shield themselves behind procedural walls when content threatens . As the case returns for hearing in September, legal professionals will closely watch whether the GAC’s order is completely implemented and whether the court imposes further compliance mechanisms. For now, the message is clear: the judiciary will not tolerate a systemic delay in removing content that risks inflaming religious tensions.
