Back
Told Withheld Dhruv Rathee Hindu Deities Video in India
The on Tuesday was informed that has withheld YouTuber Dhruv Rathee's video on Hindu deities in India, following an order from the Union government's . The disclosure came during a hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was considering a plea filed by seeking the global removal of the video, which she alleges contains derogatory and communally sensitive remarks about Hindu gods Ram, Sita, and Krishna.
's counsel told the court that the video, titled
"Can Hindus Eat BEEF? | Kerala Story 2 EXPOSED,"
was uploaded by Rathee on
, and has been restricted for viewers within India. However, the platform noted that the video remains accessible outside the country and through virtual private networks (VPNs). The issue of a
,
argued, is already pending before a Division Bench of the same court.
The Legal Landscape of Content Regulation
The case underscores the evolving framework for online content regulation in India. The GAC, established under the , serves as the appellate mechanism for users aggrieved by decisions of social media platforms' grievance officers. In this instance, Sachdeva had initially approached 's , who found no violation of community guidelines. She then appealed to the GAC, which reversed that decision on , directing to take down the video within 24 hours. 's compliance—withholding the video only in India—has been characterized by Sachdeva as "partial compliance."
The court's docket reflects a broader constitutional tension: the right to under versus the need to regulate content that may offend religious sentiments or incite communal discord. The case also touches upon the of Indian regulatory orders, a contentious issue in the digital age.
's Position and the Pending Division Bench
During Tuesday's hearing,
's counsel maintained that the video was no longer viewable in India, asserting that the platform had taken all necessary action within the jurisdiction. The question of whether a
should be issued—thereby removing content worldwide—is a matter the Division Bench is set to resolve. Justice Sharma acknowledged this, noting:
"He has given you the answer that the issue regarding
is already pending before the DB. What they could do they have done and whatever remains that will be seen after what DB decides."
This leaves the petition in a state of limbo. Sachdeva, who , argued that the video's continued availability abroad—and via VPNs within India—defeats the purpose of the GAC's order. She also raised the concern that several other YouTubers have uploaded identical or similar content, and sought permission to request to remove those as well. opposed that request, asserting that such uploads constitute requiring separate legal proceedings.
The Government's Stance: "Across-the-Board" Application
, representing the
, urged the court to consider the broader implications of the case. He argued that once a specific piece of content has been objected to and the authorities have found the objection tenable, the direction should have a wider application to avoid a "whack-a-mole" scenario.
"Otherwise the baton will be passed from a to b, then b to c, and c to d… At least some indication must come in the order. Otherwise it will be an endless exercise of filing petitions,"
he submitted.
This perspective highlights a practical challenge in content moderation: when identical content is re-uploaded by different users, a piecemeal approach can lead to endlessly repeated litigation. The court, however, declined to pass immediate directions on these broader reliefs, adjourning the matter to .
The Allegations and Separate Criminal Proceedings
The dispute over the video's content is central to the case. Sachdeva's plea asserts that Rathee made
"false, misleading, and provocative statements"
suggesting that Lord Ram, Lord Krishna, and Sita consumed meat and alcohol, which she described as
"derogatory, inflammatory, and communally sensitive."
She has also initiated criminal proceedings against Rathee under
, which pertain to promoting enmity between different groups, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and defamation, respectively.
The video, which discussed dietary habits of Hindu deities based on ancient scriptures, has triggered significant controversy. Sachdeva's complaint alleges that the video's claims insult Hindu beliefs and offend the sentiments of crores of Hindus. The matter is distinct from the ongoing Division Bench consideration of global takedowns, as it involves a direct challenge to the content's legality under Indian law.
Implications for and Global Takedowns
This case before the raises critical questions for legal practitioners and online platforms alike. The interplay between the GAC's directive, which is a , and the platform's implementation—territorial rather than global—exposes the limits of national regulatory regimes in a borderless digital environment. The pending Division Bench decision on global injunctions could set a significant precedent; if the court endorses extraterritorial orders, social media platforms may be compelled to remove content worldwide based on a single country's grievance mechanism. Conversely, a refusal could undermine the efficacy of domestic takedown orders, as VPNs render territorial restrictions effectively moot.
The government's insistence on a uniform application of orders across identical content further complicates the legal landscape. If adopted, this approach would require intermediaries to proactively identify and block not just the original offending video but also any re-uploads or derivatives. This duty could impose substantial burdens on platforms, necessitating robust content-matching technologies and cross-user monitoring.
The Road Ahead for Legal Professionals
For legal professionals, this case exemplifies the evolving jurisprudence on online speech and . The outcome will likely influence how similar disputes are adjudicated, particularly concerning the reach of Indian orders and the responsibilities of global platforms. The adjournment to September provides an opportunity for the court to consider the issues in a measured manner, potentially harmonizing the GAC's mandate with fundamental rights and practical enforcement.
The matter also underscores the importance of the GAC as a statutory body. Its decisions are , but enforcement mechanisms and the scope of those decisions remain contested. As the courts continue to interpret the Information Technology Rules, practitioners must stay abreast of these developments to effectively counsel clients—whether they are content creators seeking to assert their freedom of expression or individuals seeking redress for offensive material.
Conclusion
The 's proceedings in highlight the delicate balance between protecting religious sentiments and upholding constitutional freedoms. While has complied with the GAC's order to the extent of withholding the video in India, the global question lingers. With the Division Bench poised to rule on global takedowns, and the next hearing scheduled for , the legal community will be watching closely. The case is a microcosm of the challenges posed by the internet: content without borders, regulation within them, and the courts caught in between.
