Google CEO Sundar Pichai has been served with a contempt notice by a Mumbai court. Pichai received the warning after YouTube disregarded a court order telling them to remove the ‘Pakhandi Baba ki Kartut’ disparaging video. Google is currently dealing with another antitrust inquiry in India at the same time as the legal issues.
The Allegations Against ‘Pakhandi Baba ki Kartut’
After YouTube disregarded a previous order to take down a purportedly defamatory video that targeted the NGO Dhyan Foundation and its founder, Yogi Ashwini, a Mumbai court has sent Google CEO Sundar Pichai a contempt notice.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Ballard Pier asked on November 21 why Pichai should not face contempt charges for YouTube’s failure to comply with its March 2023 order. Despite the court’s takedown order, the aforementioned movie, “Pakhandi Baba ki Kartut,” is still available outside of India.
The Dhyan Foundation filed the action, and a follow-up hearing has been set for January 3, 2025.
In its appeal, the animal protection group Dhyan Foundation asserted that Google-owned YouTube had “intentionally and deliberately” neglected to take down the offensive video, which it said damages the organization’s and its founder’s reputation.
In their appeal, the NGO claimed that “Google was using delay tactics and requesting adjournments on tenuous grounds, even as damage was done to the Dhyan Foundation and Yogi Ashwini Ji’s impeccable character and reputation.”
YouTube asserted that defamation does not fit within the types of content specified in Section 69-A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, which permits content banning, citing its immunity as an intermediary under the Act.
Sensitive Beliefs and Public Order at Stake
The platform made the case that civil courts, not criminal ones, ought to handle these kinds of conflicts.However, the court rejected these claims, stating that criminal courts are still able to become involved under the IT Act. “Fans of any organization in India have extremely sensitive feelings, especially when it comes to their beliefs. As a result, the court stated that if those recordings are not banned, they could endanger public order and state security.
The magistrate added that there was no question about the video’s defamatory content and that its ongoing distribution would disturb the peace.
The letter from the court raises serious concerns regarding the responsibility of IT companies and their leaders to follow Indian court demands. Even if Google’s legal team has contested the reach of criminal jurisdiction, the magistrate’s ruling emphasizes how crucial it is to safeguard reputational rights in delicate situations.
YouTube’s Claim of Intermediary Immunity Under IT Act
YouTube claimed intermediary immunity under the IT Act, arguing that defamation is not included by the Act’s Section 69-A categories. According to the platform, civil courts, not criminal courts, should handle these kinds of complaints.
The court dismissed YouTube’s technical concerns, stating that criminal courts are not expressly prohibited from getting involved in these types of cases under the IT Act. “I find the respondent’s authorities to be helpful thus far. The process is mentioned in the aforementioned authority. Nevertheless, it is never stated that the criminal court lacks the authority to consider such an application. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the current application’s maintainability will not be hampered by the ratio of the aforementioned authorities.
Due to a complaint from the gaming business WinZO, Google is currently the subject of another antitrust probe. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) already fined the company in 2022 for abusing its dominant position with the Play Store and Android mobile ecosystem. This current investigation comes on top of those fines. Google’s actions in the gaming industry are currently being looked into by the CCI as well.
