Nominations Are Now Open for the 2024 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression Prizes. Learn more and nominate here

Global Freedom of Expression

Aaradhya Bachchan v. Bollywood Times

In Progress Mixed Outcome

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    April 20, 2023
  • Outcome
    Order Only, Decision Outcome (Disposition/Ruling), Judgment in Favor of Petitioner
  • Case Number
    CS(COMM) 230/2023
  • Region & Country
    India, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law, Cybercrime Law
  • Themes
    Content Regulation / Censorship, Digital Rights, Intermediary Liability, Privacy, Data Protection and Retention
  • Tags
    Social Media, Misinformation, Same or Similar Content, Filtering and Blocking, YouTube, Google

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

On 20th April 2023, the Delhi High Court (“the Court”) directed Google LLC to curb the dissemination of certain YouTube videos relating to the minor plaintiff, Aaradhya Bachchan (the daughter of well-known Indian celebrities) which showcased the plaintiff in a misleading light, including as critically ill and dead, and used morphing technologies to lend colour to these claims. The interim order also directed a prohibition on the dissemination of any other similar videos, which are not a party to the present suit, or any relevant future media. In the order, the court considered the plaintiff’s right to privacy and the child’s interest and observed that the “dissemination of misleading information relating to a child, especially as regards her physical or mental wellbeing, is something which is completely intolerable in law” [p. 2]. The case is listed for further judgment.


Facts

The plaintiff, Aaradhya Bachchan, is the daughter of well-known Indian celebrities Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Bachchan and the granddaughter of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan. The plaintiff alleged that despite being a healthy school-going child, some videos were circulated on YouTube which claimed that she was critically ill or dead, including videos which used morphed pictures and depicted the plaintiff surrounded by wreaths.  Claiming that this is a violation of the plaintiff’s right to privacy and intellectual property rights (including copyright in the images and pictures), the plaintiffs approached the court.


Decision Overview

Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court delivered the decision. The primary issue for consideration before the bench was whether the intermediary, in the present case Google LLC, had any liability to proactively take down such content posted on its YouTube platform under the relevant law.

Arguments before the Court

Plaintiff

The plaintiffs argued that such conduct violated the right to privacy and intellectual property rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs emphasized that the intermediaries could not be passive spectators in such cases, and should be proactive in swiftly and promptly dealing with such cases. The plaintiffs submitted that Google’s inaction violated Rule 3(1)(b)(iii) of the amended Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Media Ethics Rules, 2021”), which, inter alia, provides that intermediaries must make reasonable efforts to caution the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information that is harmful to a child. Further, the plaintiff also claimed a violation of Rule 4(4) of the IT Media Ethics Rules, 2021, which provides for additional due diligence on “significant social media intermediaries” (YouTube is identified to fall into this classification), including mandating such intermediaries to “endeavour to deploy technology-based measures, including automated tools or other mechanisms…any information that has previously been removed or access which has been disabled on the computer resource of such intermediary….”

It was accordingly argued that the amended rules require the concerned intermediary to “make reasonable efforts”, wherein it cannot claim to be a passive spectator.

Google

Google LLC contended before the Court that it had no control over the content of the videos posted on its YouTube platform since these were not screened by it prior to their posting. Further, it was argued that while YouTube had strict policies and mechanisms to address exceptional cases like child pornography, the only available recourse for other objectionable content was to report it to the intermediary, which would then take action to remove the offending materials. The court summarily rejected these submissions.

The Court’s observations

While the Court allowed the present plaint to be registered as suits and called for the issuing of summons, the Court, in the interim, makes several important observations.

It emphatically remarks that the “dissemination of misleading information relating to a child, especially as regards her physical or mental wellbeing, is something which is completely intolerable in law. No technicalities can come in the way of the Court stepping in, where such attempts are brought to its notice.” [p. 2-3]. Further, although the Court did not examine whether Google had taken all reasonable efforts or not in the present order, it observed that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and an ad interim relief is justified.

Accordingly, the Court, inter alia, issued the following directions [p. 10]:

  1. The Court restrained the defendants from disseminating or further transmitting the videos relating to the 25 URLs mentioned in the court order.
  2. The Court restrained the defendants from creating, publishing, uploading, sharing, or disseminating any identical videos that had similar content. The court restrained the defendants from uploading, sharing, or disseminating any content, on any public platform available across the internet, relating to the state of health or the physical condition of the plaintiff.
  3. The Court directed Google LLC to disclose, to the plaintiffs, the defendant’s identity and all contact details [including their Basic Subscriber Information (BSI), name, email IDs, and IP address].
  4. The Court directed Google LLC to delist and deactivate all the videos forming the subject matter of the concerned URLs.
  5. The Court directed Google LLC to immediately take down URLs related to the physical health and well-being of the plaintiff whenever brought to their notice by the plaintiff.
  6. The Court directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to block access to the above mentioned contents, uploaded by the defendants as well as to any other similar videos or clips containing similar contents, on the plaintiffs bringing it to their notice.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Mixed Outcome

The Court issued several directions, including restraining the defendants from disseminating or transmitting videos related to the minor plaintiff’s physical health and well-being, delisting and deactivating the videos in question, and directing Google to take down URLs. While the Court restricted the right to freedom of speech and expression of individuals who were disseminating such media to protect the “well-being” or interests of the child, it is to be noted that the Court did not comprehensively deal with the liability of “significant social media intermediaries” in the interim order. It would be necessary to analyze the final judgment to ascertain whether this restriction on the right to freedom of speech an expression enabled or disabled speech.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback