YouTube Not Obligated to Remove Defamatory Content Without Court Order: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court: YouTube Not Legally Bound to Remove Defamatory Content Without a Court Order

Ernakulam, Kerala – December 3, 2024 – The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice T.R.Ravi , has dismissed a writ petition seeking to compel YouTube to remove an allegedly defamatory video. The court's judgment clarifies the extent of intermediary liability under the Information Technology Act, 2000, holding that platforms like YouTube are not obligated to proactively remove content based on defamation claims without a specific court order.

Case Background: Allegations of Defamation Against Marthoma Community

The petitioner, Aneesh K. Thankachan , filed the writ petition (WP(C) NO. 36896 of 2022) alleging that a video uploaded on YouTube was defamatory to the Marthoma community and its Bishop. He contended that the video was scandalous, insulting, and aimed at disrupting communal harmony. Thankachan sought directives for YouTube to remove the video and similar content, arguing that YouTube , as a significant social media intermediary, had failed in its duty to regulate uploaded materials. He also filed complaints with both YouTube and state IT authorities, which he claimed were not adequately addressed.

Petitioner's Arguments: Seeking Content Removal and Prosecution

The petitioner argued that YouTube should remove the video based on his complaint (Ext.P1) under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. He also contended that the State Nodal Officer (5th respondent) should prosecute the complaint (Ext.P2) under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, and Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. He asserted that the video violated YouTube 's user agreement and community guidelines and fell under the purview of Section 69A, which allows the government to block online content.

YouTube 's Stance: Intermediary Role and Reliance on Court Orders

YouTube (Respondents 6 and 7), represented by Senior Advocate Sri Santhosh Mathew, countered that they function as intermediaries and cannot be arbiters of content veracity. They cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India , emphasizing the impracticality of intermediaries judging millions of content takedown requests. YouTube stated they would comply with orders from a competent court but cannot unilaterally remove content based solely on defamation allegations.

Court's Reasoning: Upholding Intermediary Protections and Shreya Singhal Precedent

Justice Ravi referenced the landmark Shreya Singhal judgment, which examined Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act. The court highlighted that Section 69A, concerning government blocking of content, is narrowly defined and requires safeguards, applying only to matters concerning national sovereignty, security, public order, etc., and not defamation in itself.

Regarding Section 79, which provides exemptions for intermediaries, the High Court reiterated the Shreya Singhal interpretation that intermediaries are liable to remove content only upon "actual knowledge" in the form of a court order . The judgment quoted paragraph 121 and 122 of Shreya Singhal to underscore that intermediaries are not expected to independently assess the legitimacy of content takedown requests.

The court stated:

> "It can be seen that the word “actual knowledge” in Section 79(3) (b) is to be understood as “the actual knowledge that a Court order has been passed to expeditiously remove or disable access.” Section 79(3)(b) has to be read down to mean that the intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge that a court order has been passed asking it to expeditiously remove or disable access to certain material must then fail to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material. This is for the reason that otherwise it would be very difficult for intermediaries like Google, Facebook, etc. to act when millions of requests are made and the intermediary is then to judge as to which of such requests are legitimate and which are not."

Dismissal of Petition: No Mandamus for Content Removal

Based on this legal framework, the Kerala High Court concluded that the petitioner's demand for YouTube to remove the video, absent a court order finding it defamatory, could not be granted. The court also rejected the prayer to quash YouTube 's communication (Ext.P5) explaining their inability to remove the video without a court directive, finding YouTube 's position legally sound.

Implications: Clarity on Intermediary Responsibility

This judgment reinforces the principle established in Shreya Singhal regarding intermediary liability in India. It clarifies that social media platforms like YouTube are not legally mandated to act as arbiters of content disputes, particularly in cases of defamation, without judicial intervention. Content removal obligations for intermediaries are triggered primarily by court orders or government notifications related to specific, well-defined categories like national security, and not by mere allegations of defamation. This ruling provides crucial clarity for both content creators and online platforms operating within India's legal framework.