Delhi High Court - Orders
Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr vs Google Llc. & Ors on 21 February, 2019
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (OS) 104/2019 & I.A. 2577/2019
PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Simranjeet Singb, Mr.
Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Sonali Dhir, Mr.
Aadhar Nautiyal & Ms. Kaveri
Birbal, Advocates (M-88263746730)
versus
GOOGLE LLC. & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mamta R. Jha & Ms. Sakshi
Jhalani, Advocates for D-1&2 (M-
8814048526)
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Tejas Karia, Mr. Richa
Srivastava, Mr. Shijo George, Ms.
Pallavi Chopra, Ms. Nayantara
Narayan, Mr. Dhruv Bhatnagar & Mr.
Rishabh, Advocates (M-9810323014)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 21.02.2019 The present suit was listed on 19th February, 2019 when the following order was passed:
"4. Present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking an injunction restraining further broadcast of an offending video, which has been shown to the Court. The Court has viewed the video. The contents of the video show a person using extremely deprecating, threatening and defamatory language against the Plaintiff company and its promoter, Baba Ram Dev. The Plaintiffs have communicated with Google, Facebook & YouTube seeking them to take down the video. In their response, they have refused to take down the said video and have requested the Plaintiffs to avail its remedies in law. One such email, which is at page 25, written by Facebook on 6th February, 2019 clearly states that Facebook is not in a position to take action based on the defamation concerns.
5. Accordingly, issue summons in the suit and notice in the application to Google, Facebook & YouTube. Summons and notice be sent through email. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiffs is also permitted to serve the said three companies through their counsels, who have appeared in an earlier litigation for them in CS (OS) 27/2019."
Ld. Counsels for the Defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 have entered appearance.
A perusal of the impugned video which was viewed by the Court on the last date shows that the same is extremely offending in nature and explicit language that is used in the video is not just defamatory and deprecating but also constitute a threat to Plaintiff No.2.
In this context, the Defendants submit that while jurisdiction can be exercised for blocking the URLs and weblinks in the Indian domain, any direction for blocking it internationally, ought to be passed after hearing the Defendants. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs has submitted that he relies on the policy of YouTube itself, which clearly provides that any videos which incite violence would be contrary to the policy of YouTube. A copy of the policy be handed over to the Defendants.
List on 26th February, 2019 for further submissions on behalf of the Defendants. In the meantime, URLs/weblinks, given at page 19 of the documents annexed to the plaint, shall be blocked in India within 48 hours.
Further, the Defendants shall also obtain the basic subscriber information of the entity/person who has uploaded the video. The same may be brought in a sealed cover. The Plaintiffs are also directed to place the video in a pen drive along with the actual Hindi transcript in Court before the next date.
List on 26th February, 2019. Dasti.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
FEBRUARY 21, 2019 Rahul