Mumbai Court Issues Contempt Notice to Sundar Pichai Over YouTube Video
Mumbai Court Issues Contempt Notice to Sundar Pichai Over YouTube Video
Google CEO Sundar Pichai faces legal scrutiny for YouTube’s non-compliance with a court order to remove a defamatory video targeting an Indian NGO.
A Mumbai court has issued a contempt notice to Google CEO Sundar Pichai after YouTube failed to remove a video titled “Pakhandi Baba ki Kartut,” which allegedly defames the Dhyan Foundation and its founder, Yogi Ashwini. The case, filed by the NGO, has been scheduled for further hearing on January 3, 2025.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Ballard Pier dismissed YouTube’s argument for immunity under the IT Act, emphasizing the video’s defamatory nature and the potential for it to disturb public peace. The court remarked:
“The sentiments of followers of any organisation in India are very sensitive, particularly regarding beliefs. If such videos are not restricted, it may pose a threat to public order and security of the State.”
Despite a takedown directive issued in March 2023, the video remains accessible outside India.
Arguments and Implications
YouTube’s Defense: The platform claimed intermediary immunity under the IT Act, asserting that defamation does not fall under the categories of content listed in Section 69-A of the Act. It argued that such disputes should be addressed in civil courts, not criminal proceedings.
Court’s Rejection: The court held that the IT Act does not exempt criminal courts from intervening in content-related disputes, especially when public peace is at risk.
The Dhyan Foundation accused Google of employing “delay tactics” and causing significant harm to the reputation of Yogi Ashwini and the NGO.
This case could set a critical precedent for how global tech platforms operate in India, particularly regarding compliance with judicial orders on content moderation. The court’s notice underscores the accountability of platform executives in ensuring adherence to Indian legal standards.
As the legal battle unfolds, the verdict may influence how digital intermediaries balance free expression and regulatory compliance in the country.
