Duty of social media intermediaries to block channel if video violates their guidelines: Madras High Court cancels YouTuber's bail

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday held that social media intermediaries like YouTube are duty-bound to block channels whose videos are found to be in violation of their policies, guidelines, and terms of contract [State, represented by the Inspector of Police v A Duraimurugan Pandiyan Sattai @ Duraimurugan]..Single-judge Justice B Pugalendhi further said that the intermediaries should take action to remove such offensive videos in view of the provisions of the Information Technology Act. "It is duty of the intermediaries to ascertain whether those videos are in accordance with their policies and guidelines and in terms of the contract and to block the channels if the videos are not in accordance with the terms and policies. ... If it is not blocked or removed even after it was brought to their knowledge, the intermediaries are committing the offence under Section 69A (3) of the Information Technology Act," the Court said in its judgment..It further held that the intermediaries are not expected to insist for first information reports (FIR) or any court orders to remove videos which violate their own guidelines, as per the terms of the agreement entered into between the intermediary and the content creator. .It is duty of the intermediaries to ascertain whether those videos are in accordance with their policies and guidelines and in terms of the contract and to block the channels if the videos are not in accordance with the terms and policies.Madras High Court.Justice Pugalendhi also expressed concern over the manner in which social media platforms are being misused for making money by publishing obscene and derogatory content."Though there are provisions in the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules, there is no implementation of the same by the concerned authorities and therefore the offences are growing rapidly under cyber crime" the judgment stated..The Court took note of the fact that some of the concerning videos contained pornographic or horrific content, tutorials for making guns, bombs, hooch, as well as derogatory and defamatory statements without any basis in fact."This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that these type of videos can be easily accessed even by the current generation kids, which would create chaos in their minds and affect their mental growth," the Court stated. .The judgment began with this quote from Albert Einstein:"I invented the atomic energy for the upliftment of the human kind. I did not expect that the same would be used for disastrous effect. Had I anticipated the same, I would not have invented atomic energy."Justice Pugalendhi surmised that just like with every scientific invention, misuse of the internet and social media is rampant, as can be seen from the case on hand. .The Court was considering a plea moved by the State to cancel the bail granted to YouTuber Sattai Duraimurugan in an FIR that was registered after he allegedly made certain derogatory remarks against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin.During the course of the hearing, the Court was informed that Duraimurugan was not an exception, but millions on YouTube engage in similar activities and earn good money while doing so. .Considering the seriousness of the issue involved and its consequences, the Court appointed advocate KK Ramakrishnan as amicus curiae.The amicus pointed out that some platforms, YouTube in particular, has formulated community guidelines, violation of which can get a channel suspended or permanently removed. The Court viewed this as an agreement or contract between YouTube and each channel on the platform. Therefore, it held that it is up to the intermediary to ascertain if the content on its platform violates its own guidelines and block channels as necessary. .In Duraimurugan's case, the Court found that even after bail was granted, he continued to make videos with similar derogatory remarks. Therefore, it cancelled his bail and further ordered that if the intermediary fails to remove the videos even after being informed of its nature, the investigating agency shall book them as well..[Read Judgment]