Delhi HC directs GAC to decide plea seeking removal of Dhruv Rathee's video within 15 days

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Centre's Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to decide within 15 days a pending appeal seeking removal of YouTuber Dhruv Rathee's video titled "Can Hindus Eat Beef? | Kerala Story 2 Exposed" from YouTube.

The direction came while disposing of a petition filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who had approached the High Court alleging that the video was defamatory and contained content targeting Hindu deities Lord Ram and Sita.

She had sought directions to the GAC to decide her pending appeal or to direct the removal of the video.


Also Read: 'Are all citizens being made slaves of Indian govt': Bombay HC quashes externment order over CAA protests

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union Government, submitted that the intermediary ought to have taken down the video, contending that the content was harmful and fissiparous.

Appearing for Google, counsel informed the Court that the petitioner had already approached the Grievance Appellate Committee under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, for redressal of her grievance.

Taking note of the submissions, the High Court directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide the pending appeal within 15 days and disposed of the writ petition.

Also Read: Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra not answerable to govt: Ministry of Home Affairs

According to the petition, Sachdeva had challenged the GAC's failure to decide her appeal against the video within the timeline contemplated under Rule 3A(4) of the IT Rules, 2021. She alleged that despite approaching YouTube's Resident Grievance Officer and thereafter filing an appeal before the GAC, no decision had been taken, prompting her to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

The petition had also referred to parallel criminal proceedings before the Saket Court, where an Action Taken Report had earlier been sought from the concerned SHO on her application seeking registration of an FIR in relation to the video.