Google told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that it has withheld influencer Dhruv Rathee's "defamatory" YouTube video on Hindu deities, which allegedly hurt religious sentiments, in India and not globally.
Google, which owns YouTube, made the statement before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in response to a petition filed by lawyer Amita Sachdeva.
According to LiveLaw, Google said that the action has not been taken globally because the issue of passing a global injunction is pending consideration before a division bench.
What is the case?
The fresh plea is part of a petition by lawyer Amita Sachdeva, who has also filed a criminal case against Rathee over his video.
Sachdeva claimed that on March 21, Rathee's YouTube video titled “Can Hindus eat BEEF? Kerala Story 2 Exposed” was highly derogatory and communally sensitive.
He said the video garnered millions of views on YouTube and contained “false, misleading, and provocative statements insulting Bhagwan Shri Ram, Bhagwan Shri Krishna and Sita Devi”.
Sachdeva said that on July 15, the Centre's Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) had directed Google to take down the video within 24 hours, but it only “withheld the video” in India, which was only "partial compliance".
"... despite the statutory mandate to decide the appeal within 30 days, the GAC has failed to dispose of the same. The offending video continues to remain publicly accessible on YouTube and is causing continuous injury to the religious sentiments of crores of Hindus," the plea said.
LiveLaw reported that the counsel appearing for Google argued that the video has been taken down in India and that a global injunction issue is pending before the division bench (DB).
“Issue regarding the global injunction is already pending before the division bench. Whatever they could do, they have already done,” Justice Sharma responded.
Appearing for the Centre, ASG Chetan Sharma said that once a video has been objected to, then the order must apply across the board. “Otherwise the baton will be passed from a to b, then b to c, and c to d….”
“At least some indication must come in the order. Otherwise, it will be an endless exercise of filing petitions,” he added.
The Court ultimately adjourned the matter to September 3.
