Justice C Hari Shankar reasoned that every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect whether they are a celebrity’s child or of a commoner.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday restrained a bunch of YouTube channels from disseminating or further transmitting videos with false claims about Amitabh Bachchan’s 11-year-old granddaughter, Aaradhya Bachchan.
Justice C Hari Shankar, while issuing notice on a plea by Bachchan, restrained the YouTube channels along with their associates from disseminating or further transmitting the videos identified in the plaint.
“Defendants 1-9 are also restrained from creating publishing, uploading or disseminating of any videos which are identical or similar in content to the videos forming subject matter of the aforesaid URLs. It is clarified that this would encompass all videos that deal with the physical condition of the plaintiff. In other words, Defendants are completely restrained from disseminating on any platform available across the internet relating to the mental or physical health of the plaintiff.”
Further, Google was directed to reveal the identity of the defendants to the Bachchan’s and immediately take steps to deactivate the URls mentioned in the plaint.
“On the plaintiff bringing to their notice any other videos clip uploaded on its platform dealing with physical health and wellbeing of the plaintiff, google will take immediate steps to take those down.”
The court also ordered the Central government to block access to all the content as well as to any other similar videos or clips containing similar content.
Google, the owner of YouTube, was additionally directed to set out in detail its policy showing compliance with Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines Digital Media ethics) Rules to show that if has effected any change in its policy to bring it in line with the amendment carried out.
“The court will have to examine whether its policies are sufficient and in line with the IT Rules. The D 10 is duty bound in law to ensure strict compliance with entire statutory regime wrt to the intermediaries which governs it and which will include the IT Rules as amended in October 2022”, the single-judge ordered.
The court observed that while this was not the first time that such misleading information was being spread regarding a celebrity, where the information relates to a child, it reflected a morbid perversity with complete apathy to the child in question.
“Every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect whether he/she is child of celebrity or a commoner. Circulating information with respect to mental and physical health of child is completely impermissible in law.”
Aaradhya Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan moved the High Court to restrain various YouTube channels and John Doe defendants (unknown people) from publishing content that tarnish the Bachchan family name, discloses any details pertaining to their private life or which are defamatory in nature.
The Bachchans contended that they came across several videos on YouTube that claimed that Aaradhya was severely unwell and has been admitted to hospital. One of the videos even claimed that she has passed away. The videos further alleged that Bachchans did not take any steps to provide prompt medical attention to the child.
However, the plaint stated that Aaradhya is in good health and has not been hospitalised.
During the hearing, Justice Shankar came down upon the streaming platform for what it considered to be omission in carrying out its responsibility by allowing such false information to be disseminated through its platform.
“If you are making money out of what you are doing, you have a social responsibility. You can’t allow such things to be posted on your platform. You acknowledge that there are certain things for which you have zero tolerance. Why should this not fall in that category? That means your policy is faulty,” the judge said.
The court further remarked that the platform cannot get away by saying that it is merely an intermediary and not putting up such videos.
“You are providing a facility to misinform the public. It’s like saying the Times of India says that I am only providing paper and ink and you can write anything on the paper. You are providing a platform on which misleading information is being provided to the public. How can this be tolerated,” the bench asked.
It said that YouTube should have a policy in place to tackle such videos.
“You have responsibility to see that proper information is disseminated. Why don’t you have a policy in matters like this,” the bench asked.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, appearing for Aaradhya referred to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules which provide for due diligence by the intermediaries with regard to content which is harmful to a child.
“In the age of social media, the reputation of a public person has become a child’s play and here a child has to suffer”, he argued.
The plaint asserted that the videos violate the plaintiff’s right to privacy and tarnish the goodwill vested in the Bachchan family name.
