An intermediary cannot evade its statutory due diligence obligations to remove infringing content by citing third-party uploads once a court order provides 'actual knowledge' of the illegality, as mandated under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Order

1. The matter comes up on an interlocutory application (1/2025) preferred on behalf of applicant/respondent No.3 Google LLC, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 seeking clarification in respect of order dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 3 submits that 12 URLs mentioned in paragraph 3.6 of the application were uploaded by third-party uploaders, who are not even parties to the present writ petition. Therefore, the applicant lacks authority to remove the said content from its channels.

3. The order dated 07.01.2025, of which clarification is sought, reads as infra:

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a second round of litigation, as the petitioner is compelled to come before this Court for the reason that as many as 154 URL Links are generated on the YouTube, which will prejudice the petitioner’s right to privacy. He also submits that in the earlier writ petition No.5842/2024, the Court vide its order dated 25.07.2024 had directed the Nodal Officer of respondent No.1 – Union of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India to abide by the notification dated 25.02.2021 as well as the relevant provisions for blocking or offloading the content in question, as there were 45 URL Links on the YouTube violating the Right to Privacy of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit submits that if the URL Link on the YouTube channel is visited repeatedly then a URL Link is generated automatically as per the mechanism, which is evident from the fact that as there were as many as 45 URL Links on the YouTube channel and despite the fact that in compliance of the directions of the Court, the said URL Links were offloaded/removed from the YouTube Channel, again as many as 154 URL Links are generated.

3. In view of the submissions made, issue notice to respondent No.1 & 3 only.

4. As Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. S.G. accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1, no need to issue notice to respondent No.1.

5. The petitioner is at liberty to serve the notice to respondent No.3 through Email ID:- Legal@support.youtube.com or at the office situated at New Delhi, India through registered post.

6. The petitioner is directed to file a requisite application/complaint before the concerned Grievance Redressal Mechanism while indicating in it the URL Links generated on the YouTube Channel and ventilating her grievances as well. In case, the petitioner files a representation/complaint, the Nodal Officer of respondent No.1 – Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, Government of India to abide by the Notification dated 25.02.2021 namely Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 particularly, Rule 3 (1) (b) (i) (ii) as well as Rule 3 (2) and take necessary steps so as to block/offload the content in question as expeditiously as possible.

7. List this matter after four weeks along with SBCWP No.5842/2024 after reflecting the name of Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. S.G. as counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 in the cause list.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 3 (1) (b) (i) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Rules of