The court affirmed the necessity of a liberal approach to condonation of delay in legal proceedings to promote substantive justice, while refraining from commenting on the magistrate's jurisdiction regarding content removal.

JUDGMENT :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. As these petitions have their genesis in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, in one and the same proceeding, the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The petitioner is a registered charitable non-profit organization. It is promoting the cause of animal welfare. The petitioner works for the rescue, care, treatment and rehabilitation of animals, with the assistance of law enforcement agencies. YouTube, a social media intermediary, is operated by Google LLC – Respondent No. 1.

4. The petitioner alleges the Respondent No. 1 has allowed to broadcast and publish five per se defamatory videos, on YouTube platform. Those videos containing baseless, false and the defamatory imputations against the petitioner were widely circulated. They have the propensity to tarnish the image and reputation of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner thus filed a miscellaneous application, being MA No.4907/2021, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. By an order dated 31^st March, 2023, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the said application and directed Respondent No. 1 to stop and remove the circulation of the defamatory videos and the State Government - Respondent No. 2 was directed to enter into correspondence with Respondent No. 1 to comply with the rules framed under Information Technology Act, 2000.

6. Since the Respondent No. 1 failed to delete the offending videos, the petitioner filed another Miscellaneous Application i.e. CC No. Misc/3800448/2023, for initiation of action for disobedience of the order of the Court.

7. The petitioner claims the Respondent No. 1 thereupon approached the Court of Session and filed Criminal Revision Application along with an application for condonation of delay of 116 days. By an order dated 31^st December, 2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay.

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred WP No. 760/2025 asserting, inter alia, that the said application was allowed in a mechanical manner, without any sufficient cause having been made out by the Respondent No.1.

9. By a further order dated 02^nd January, 2025 in the Revision Application No. 04/2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge stayed the proceedings in CC No. Misc/3800448/2023, initiated by the petitioner for the disobedience of the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 31^st March, 2023. The petitioner has, thus, preferred Writ Petition No. 794/2025 to assail the legality, propriety and correctness of the said interim order.

10. I have heard Mr. Harish Pandya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aabad Ponda the learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, and Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar learned APP for the State at some length. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record including the pleadings before the Courts below and the impugned orders.

WRIT PETITION NO.760 OF 2025

11. Mr. Pandya, the learned Counsel for petitioner, submitted that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a grave error in law in condoning the delay of 116 days in filing the revision application, though the Respondent No. 1 had not ascribed any reason which could amount to a sufficient cause. Taking the Court through the averments in the application for condonation of delay, Mr. Pandya would urge the only reason that can be discerned from the ap