Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Aaradhya Bachchan and Another – Appellant
Versus
Bollywood Time and Another – Respondent
CS(COMM) 230 of 2023
Decided on : 20-04-2023
Privacy Rights - Information Technology Act - Rule 3(1)(b)(iii) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Rule 4(4) of the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules - The court discussed the amended 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules and the responsibilities of significant social media intermediaries, such as YouTube, in ensuring compliance with the rules. The court highlighted the requirement for intermediaries to make reasonable efforts to prevent the hosting, display, or sharing of harmful content, and the need for proactive measures to identify and remove such content. The court also emphasized the duty of intermediaries to comply with the entire statutory regime governing them, including the amended rules.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff 1, a minor and celebrity child, filed a suit alleging the dissemination of misleading and harmful videos about her health and privacy on YouTube. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief and compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs, justifying the grant of ad interim relief. It issued injunctions restraining the dissemination of specific videos and directing the disclosure and deactivation of such content by the defendants. The court emphasized the need for immediate relief to prevent further prejudice to the plaintiffs.
Issues: The issues involved the dissemination of harmful content on YouTube, the responsibilities of significant social media intermediaries, and the compliance with the amended 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs, the nature of the grievance, and the need for immediate relief to prevent further harm. The court also emphasized the duty of intermediaries to comply with the statutory regime governing them, including the amended rules.
Final Decision: The court granted ad interim relief, issued injunctions, and directed the defendants to disclose and deactivate specific videos. The matter was listed for further proceedings.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The judgment emphasizes the duty of significant social media intermediaries, such as YouTube, to make reasonable efforts to prevent the dissemination of harmful content and to comply with the statutory regime, including the amended 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules (!) (!) .
The case involved a minor and celebrity child who filed a suit against the dissemination of misleading and harmful videos about her health and privacy on YouTube. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs and granted ad interim relief, including injunctions to restrain the dissemination of specific videos and to require the disclosure and deactivation of such content (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the importance of compliance with the amended 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules, especially the obligations of significant social media intermediaries to proactively identify and remove harmful content, particularly content that is harmful to children (!) (!) (!) .
The responsibilities of intermediaries extend beyond passive moderation; they are now required to make reasonable efforts to prevent hosting, display, or sharing of prohibited content and to act promptly upon being informed of such content (!) (!) (!) .
The court underscored that the definition of a "significant social media intermediary" includes platforms with a large user base, such as YouTube, making the rules applicable to them (!) .
The court directed the defendant (Google LLC) to disclose the identity and contact details of the users responsible for the offending content, to delist and deactivate the videos, and to cooperate with the court's orders to prevent further dissemination of harmful content (!) (!) (!) .
It was also ordered that the access to infringing content be blocked by the relevant authorities, and that the intermediary implement measures to identify and remove similar content in the future (!) .
The court emphasized the importance of immediate action by intermediaries upon notification of harmful content, aligning with the stricter responsibilities introduced by the amendments to the guidelines (!) (!) .
Various procedural directions were issued, including the filing of pleadings, responses, and additional documents, as well as the scheduling of further hearings, to ensure the case proceeds efficiently (!) (!) (!) .
The court also granted exemptions for certain procedural requirements, such as serving notices, and allowed extensions for filing court fees and filing additional evidence, facilitating the smooth progression of the case (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the court's stance on the responsibilities of social media platforms regarding harmful content, especially involving minors, and the procedural framework established for this case.
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
CS(COMM) 230/2023
1. Plaintiff 1 Aaradhya Bachchan is the daughter of Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Bachchan and granddaughter of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan, all of whom are celebrities in their own right. The facts of this case reveal that Plaintiff 1, at the tender age of 11, is having to suffer the vicissitudes which have visited her as sequelae of her celebrity status.
2. Shorn of superfluities, the grievance of Plaintiff 1 in the present plaint, which has been filed through her father (Plaintiff 2), is that, though she is a healthy school going child, studying in Dhirubhai Ambani International School, Mumbai, certain miscreants, merely for the sake of puerile publicity, have, over a period of time, been circulating videos on YouTube, stating that Plaintiff 1 is critically ill, to the extent that one of the videos even claimed that she was no more. Apparently, morphed pictures have also been used in the said videos, so as to lend colour to the information that they seek to convey, with one of the videos even showing a child surrounded by wreaths. The videos also invite subscriptions from those who are viewing them.
3. Such videos, alleges the plaint, breach Plaintiff 1's right to privacy and are in violation of Rule 3(1)(b)(iii) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules”), as amended in 2022 by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2022 (“the 2022 Amendment Rules”) and also violates the intellectual property rights, which vests in the Bachchan family, including copyright in the images and pictures of the plaintiffs.
4. This Court has seen the images that have been provided with the plaint.
5. Though it is not the first time that such misleading information is being circulated in respect of celebrities, where the information relates to a child of tender years, it reflects a particularly morbid perversity on the part of the person circulating such information, with complete and resolute apathy to the interests of the child who is targeted. Every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect, be she the child of a celebrity or the child of a commoner. Dissemination of misleading information relating to a child, especially as regards her physical or mental wellbeing, is something which is completely intolerable in law. No technicalities can come in the way of the Court stepping in, where such attempts are brought to its notice.
6. Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, learned Counsel, who appears for Google LLC, which runs the YouTube platform, submits that her client has no control over the content of the videos which are posted on the YouTube platform, as the videos are not screened by her client before they are posted. She submits that though YouTube has a zero-tolerance policy with respect to certain exceptional cases such as child pornography and other such content, for which they have a special mechanism in place, in respect of other information, the only remedial mechanism available is for a person, who may object to the information posted on YouTube to bring it to the notice of the Google LLC, whereupon measures would be taken to take down the offending contents. She submits that on such a complaint having been received from Plaintiff 1's father, steps were being taken in accordance with law.
7. The submission is plainly unacceptable.
8. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, has drawn my attention to the fact that the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules were amended by the 2022 Amendment Rules, and that Rule 3(1)(b) of the amended 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules reads thus:
The duty of intermediaries to block or remove content violating their guidelines without requiring FIR or court orders, and the need for effective execution of existing legal provisions to curb offen....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
