Plea In Madras High Court Seeks Regulation Of YouTube To Bring It In Conformity With Indian Laws, Social And Religious Restrictions

When the matter was taken up, the bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu said that they wanted to know the Centre's stand on the petition. However, on noting that neither the Central Government nor YouTube was a party to the proceeding, the court asked the petitioner to implead them and adjourned the case by a week.

The petition was filed by an advocate, V Parthiban. In his plea, Parthiban claimed that YouTube had no restrictions and when an objectionable post is put up on YouTube, the platform will not oversee the content unless someone reports it. He added that the damage would have been done by the time YouTube removes the objectionable content. Many viewers might have viewed the content, making it viral, and causing irreparable damage.

He added that while YouTube could act without any restrictions in countries like the USA, in India, which is a conservative nation, there were inbuilt restrictions to not speak or post about disturbing content affecting religious sentiments, personal life, and casually making damaging statements against political leaders without any basis.

Parthiban submitted that unrestricted videos were paving the way to child abuse, allowing the posting of explicit content showing children being sexually abused for monetary benefits to the channel owner. He added that as per criminal jurisprudence, the abettor was also equally punishable, and thus YouTube, which was providing a free platform for such uncontrolled, uncensored posts and comments that lead to unpleasant legal proceedings should also be held responsible.

Parthiban also pointed out that media trials were becoming increasingly popular in YouTube which would hamper the investigation. He submitted that through media trials and unrestricted YouTube content, innocent people may also be judged by people viewing the content causing the targeted individuals even to end their lives in some cases.

Parthiban submitted that the right to freedom of speech and expression was not absolute and the government had a duty to protect innocent citizens and the political leaders and eminent persons from bearing the brunt of such frivolous content for no fault of theirs.

Thus, pointing out that there was a need to bring in a mechanism, the petitioner urged the court to direct the state to bring in a mechanism to regulate and restrict the content on YouTube.

Case Title: V Parthiban v The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP 19540 of 2024