Intermediaries are not liable for third-party content unless notified by a court order to remove it, and content must threaten national interests to be blocked under Section 69A.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition was originally filed with the following prayers;

“(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing Respondents 2 & 3 to issue necessary directions to Respondents 6 and 7 to remove the video uploaded in YouTube at URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=DyVdZAacpyM at the earliest and to remove all videos hosting similar contents;

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 5^th respondent to prosecute Ext.P2 Complaint as per the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 ;

(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing Respondents 6 and 7 to decide and pass urgent orders on Ext.P1 Complaint and also to decide upon banning and removing all the contents hosted by YouTube channel named 'i2i News';

(iv) The petitioner also prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language;

(v) issue such other writ, direction or order as deemed fit.”

2. Later, by an amendment application, the petitioner has sought to grant the following prayers;

(vi) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ setting aside or quashing Ext.P5 email communication/decision taken by 7^th respondent;

(vii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding 7^th respondent to consider and decide Ext.P1 complaint afresh in accordance with Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 ; "

3. The grievance stated in the writ petition is that a video was uploaded on YouTube, which is defamatory to the Marthoma community and its Rev. Bishop. It is stated that the video is scandalous and has insulted the entire community, and it is aimed at creating a rift between the believers and to create a breach of peace and law and order. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P1 complaint under Rule 3(2) read with Rule 4(1)(c) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 2021 Rules) before the 7^th respondent. According to the petitioner, the said complaint had not been addressed. The petitioner also submits that Ext.P2 complaint had been preferred before the 5^th respondent.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the 5^th respondent has not acted in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 2009 Rules). It is also contended that the 6^th and 7^th respondents, who are significant social media intermediaries under the 2021 Rules, have failed in their statutory responsibilities to regulate and curate the contents of materials that are uploaded. It is also contended that the objectionable video contravenes and violates the user agreement and YouTube community guidelines issued by the 6^th respondent. According to the petitioner, under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('the Act' for short) and the 2009 Rules, the Central Government can block online media content. According to the petitioner, the video in question comes within the purview of Section 69A of the Act.

5. The writ petition was amended since, by Ext.P5 email dated 25.10.2022, the 6^th and 7^th respondents informed that they are not in a position to adjudicate the veracity of the postings and cannot remove video postings based on allegations of defamation. Th