NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Central Government’s Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to pass a reasoned order within 15 days on an appeal seeking the removal of a controversial YouTube video uploaded by content creator Dhruv Rathee.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while disposing of the matter, emphasized the time-bound nature of the administrative remedy and stated that the GAC's decision must be taken "under intimation to this court." The Bench added a strict caveat that "any disregard of this order will be taken note of seriously."
Background of the Dispute
The Bench was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who took objection to a video uploaded on YouTube by Rathee on March 21, 2026, titled 'Can Hindus Eat BEEF? | Kerala Story 2 EXPOSED'.
The petitioner contended that the video contained highly derogatory, inflammatory, and communally sensitive remarks. Specifically, the plea alleged that Rathee made false and distorted claims regarding revered Hindu deities—including Lord Ram, Goddess Seeta, and Lord Krishna—asserting that they consumed meat and alcohol. The petition argued that such statements deliberately mocked the sanctity of Sanatan Dharma, linked deep-seated dietary practices to identity politics, and deeply offended the religious sentiments of millions of devotees.
Statutory Violations and Arguments
According to the petitioner, the content uploaded on the digital platform ex-facie disclosed cognizable offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The plea specifically invoked:
- Section 196: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
- Section 299: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
- Section 302: Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
Appearing for the Central Government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma argued that online intermediaries are mandated to exercise stricter due diligence under the prevailing IT Rules. Characterizing the content as "harmful and fissiparous," the ASG submitted that Google/YouTube should have taken down the video independently to ensure that sentiments of the majority community are not compromised.
Conversely, the counsel appearing for Google argued that the intermediary had already processed the complainant's initial grievance and provided a formal response. It was further pointed out that since the petitioner had subsequently approached the statutory appellate body, the administrative process should be allowed to run its course.
The Court’s Ruling and Parallel Remedies
Acknowledging that the petitioner had already invoked her statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the GAC, Justice Sharma deemed it appropriate to expedite the administrative process rather than passing an ad-interim injunction. The GAC—a government-established body designed to hear user appeals against the decisions of social media intermediaries—has now been placed on a strict 15-day countdown.
Notably, this is not the only legal avenue being pursued against the video. The petitioner has also initiated separate criminal proceedings before a Magistrate Court. In those parallel proceedings, the Metropolitan Magistrate has already taken note of the criminal complaint and directed the concerned police authorities to submit an Action Taken Report (ATR) regarding the allegations of malicious distortion of scriptures.
The GAC's upcoming order will likely determine the immediate availability of the video on the intermediary platform, even as parallel criminal investigations proceed before the lower judiciary.
Discription: This legal news report tracks a dynamic freedom of speech and digital regulation dispute before the Delhi High Court. Central to the narrative is the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), a statutory body established under India’s IT Rules to handle user appeals regarding content moderation. The primary platform involved is YouTube, acting as an intermediary—a digital hosting entity legally required to maintain due diligence over user-generated content. The petitioner argues that the video commits cognizable offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), meaning the alleged speech is serious enough to warrant direct police intervention and arrest without a warrant. To support this, government counsel described the video as fissiparous, a term denoting content that tends to fracture social cohesion and disrupt communal harmony. Consequently, while the High Court expedited the administrative review, a lower magistrate court has separately demanded an Action Taken Report (ATR) from law enforcement, forcing the police to formally state their progress on the criminal allegations.