Introduction:

In a significant ruling on the role of intermediaries in managing online content, the Kerala High Court, in the case of Aneesh K. Thankachan v. Union of India, addressed whether YouTube could be compelled to remove a video alleged to be defamatory, without a court order explicitly declaring the content defamatory. The petitioner, a member of the Marthoma community, filed the petition seeking the removal of an allegedly defamatory video posted on YouTube that he argued tarnished the reputation of the community and its bishop. The petitioner had earlier approached YouTube’s Resident Grievance Officer and the Principal Secretary of the IT Department but received no resolution. The Kerala High Court ruled that YouTube, being an intermediary, could not be directed to remove the video without a court order confirming its defamatory nature.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner contended that YouTube, as a social media intermediary, had failed to regulate harmful content on its platform and allowed defamatory videos to circulate, violating the user agreement and YouTube’s community guidelines. He argued that the video could create rifts within the community and incite law and order issues. Additionally, the petitioner invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, contending that the central government had the power to block such content as it allegedly violated public order.

In response, YouTube argued that as an intermediary, it was not responsible for the content uploaded by third parties and could not be expected to arbitrate the legitimacy of each content request. Citing the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, YouTube emphasised that intermediaries were exempt from liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act unless there was a court order or direction from the government to remove content. YouTube contended that the content did not meet the criteria outlined in Section 69A for removal, as it did not threaten national security or public order.

The government, represented by the state’s advocate, similarly pointed out that Section 69A provided a specific set of circumstances under which content could be blocked, such as threats to national security, sovereignty, or public order. The petitioner’s case did not fulfil these requirements, and thus, it was inappropriate to seek the removal of the video under these provisions.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court, in its judgment, sided with YouTube, emphasising that intermediaries like YouTube cannot be held liable for content uploaded by users unless there is a direct court order or government mandate for its removal. The Court referred to the Shreya Singhal judgment, which had set important precedents regarding the liability of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act. It held that Section 79 of the Act provides a safe harbour for intermediaries, meaning they are not obligated to remove content unless they receive a court order or a directive from a government authority.

Justice T. R. Ravi, in his ruling, stated that there was no court order in this case explicitly finding the video defamatory. As the video did not fall under the specific categories set out in Section 69A for removal, such as affecting the sovereignty of India, national security, or public order, YouTube was not obligated to remove the video. The Court further pointed out that Section 69A was a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards, meaning it could only be used in cases where the content threatened significant national interests or public safety.

The Court also observed that, in line with the Shreya Singhal ruling, intermediaries like YouTube could not be expected to assess the legitimacy of every content removal request. With millions of videos uploaded daily, YouTube could not be tasked with determining the legitimacy of each claim without clear legal guidance, such as a court order or government directive. Without such orders, intermediaries would find it impossible to navigate the multitude of removal requests and could face undue liability for acting inappropriately.

In this case, as the petitioner had only alleged defamation and did not provide specific details about how the video violated public order or national security, the Court dismissed the petition. The ruling reinforced the principle that intermediaries cannot be required to take down content based solely on defamation claims unless supported by a legal finding of such nature.

Conclusion:

The Kerala High Court’s ruling underscores the limits of an intermediary’s liability under the Information Technology Act, particularly in the context of user-generated content. While the Court acknowledged the serious concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the defamatory nature of the video, it emphasised that intermediaries like YouTube cannot be held liable for content without a specific court order or government directive. This decision is consistent with the principles laid down in the Shreya Singhal case, which safeguards the role of intermediaries and ensures they are not made arbiters of content disputes. As digital platforms continue to grow, this ruling highlights the importance of clear legal processes in managing online content and balancing free speech with the need to regulate harmful material. The judgment serves as a reminder that while online platforms play a significant role in hosting content, they are not automatically responsible for removing content unless directed by a court of law or the appropriate authorities.