The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment, has held that social media intermediaries such as YouTube cannot be compelled to remove content merely on the basis of an allegation of defamation unless a competent court declares it defamatory.
Background of the Case
The bench of Justice A A Ziyad Rahman issued the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by the owners of a Malayalam television news channel. The petitioners sought a direction to Google LLC to remove allegedly defamatory content concerning them from the YouTube channel of a Malayalam online news portal.
Petitioners' Claims
The petitioners further pointed out that they had issued a legal notice to Google LLC, Google International LLC, and Google India Pvt Ltd — the operators of the social media intermediary — demanding the removal of the alleged content from the YouTube platform within seven days and payment of Rs 10 crore each as compensation. However, these efforts proved futile.
Google's Defense
Meanwhile, Google LLC contended that the alleged content was neither created, owned, nor modified by it, but had been created and uploaded by a third party. It was also submitted that YouTube is merely a platform where any person can create an account, upload videos, and make them accessible to internet users. The company further argued that blocking or removing specific content can be carried out by an intermediary only when directed by a competent court or a competent government agency.
Court's Observations
Accepting Google's contention, the High Court observed that the social media platform had no role in generating or uploading the content and functioned merely as an intermediary. Since the intermediary is a private entity, it cannot adjudicate whether content published by a user on its platform is defamatory in nature. The court held that such a determination can only be made by a competent court.
Ruling
The High Court further stated that unless there is a finding by a competent court that the alleged publications are defamatory, no relief can be granted to the petitioners with respect to the removal of the content. Accordingly, the single bench dismissed the petition, while preserving the liberty of the petitioners to invoke their civil and criminal remedies against the online news portal.
