Google CEO Sundar Pichai has found himself in a legal quagmire in India as a Mumbai court issued a contempt notice against him for failure of YouTube to delete an allegedly defamatory video titled Pakhandi Baba ki Kartut. The case starkly puts into relief the challenges faced by global tech companies when trying to navigate local laws and regulatory frameworks.
Background to the Case
The case is based on the YouTube video that has been alleged with defamatory material against Dhyan Foundation and its founder Yogi Ashwini. This video carries an allegedly false and malicious complaint about the organization. In the month of March 2022, the Ballard Pier, Mumbai, Additional Chief Justice Magistrate’s court directed YouTube to remove such a video.
Despite the court order, the video is out. It prompted the Dhyan Foundation to file a contempt petition in October 2022. They allege that Google, running the YouTube platform, has been willfully not complying with the order and embracing delay tactics.
Why Sundar Pichai Was Served Notice of Contempt
It is filed against Google and therefore the same was issued to Google with contempt notice on 21st November 2023. The Chief Executive Officer of Google Sundar Pichai has been made liable for the failure of the Google company in deleting the video.
The Dhyan Foundation claimed that even in India, the same defamatory content was still up on YouTube. It had multiplied across countries, which added to its brand damage. It contended that such act or omission on the part of Google was with the intention of showing contempt of the court.
Google Defense: Intermediary Immunity Under IT Act
It relied upon the provision of intermediary immunity under Section 69-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and urged that it falls into none of the categories as enlisted there and, hence no defamation action can be kept.
Google also claimed that such defamatory contents should be complained against civil courts and not in criminal courts. YouTube further contended that because it is an intermediary website, it cannot be liable for such content generated by its users unless under specific legal circumstances.
Court rejects Google’s arguments
Mumbai Court Overrules Google’s Argument and Quashed Argument It says, The IT Act cannot restrict criminal courts from interference over the cases related to contents deemed as defamatory. According to it, since Google operates a platform, it must obey legal orders given to it.
The court has also held Google liable for allegedly resorting to procedural delays in order to avoid the removal of the video. “The IT Act does not prohibit criminal courts from entertaining such complaints. Delaying compliance has only caused further damage to the NGO and its founder,” said the court.
Influence on Sundar Pichai and Google
This is quite well reflected in the contempt notice issued against Sundar Pichai. The case has been scheduled for next hearing on January 3, 2025; thus, it is able to bring attention to legal risk involved in such a non-compliance with the local law.
This is not the first time Google has faced regulatory challenges in India. It is being probed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for anti-competitive practices in the gaming market. This follows some of the biggest penalties ever meted out to the CCI for abusing its dominant position in the Android mobile ecosystem and the Play Store in 2022.
The Bigger Implications
A case like this really brings to the fore some of the issues related to the operation of a global technology platform in an array of different legal and regulatory environments. Intermediary platforms like YouTube always struggle between freedom of expression and following local laws.
This raises a question over whether the tech companies are responsible for content moderation and their provisions under the intermediary laws can be availed for it. According to legal experts, such cases would create precedents where the CEOs of such tech companies may be held liable for the actions carried out by their respective companies.
Role of Defamation Laws and IT Act in India:
The law of India with regards to the crime of defamation is civil as well as criminal in nature. Under the umbrella of criminal law, sections that pertain to this topic can be found at Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Civilly, the damages recovered are compensatory.
On the other hand, the Information Technology Act deals with the law which governs the regulation of the digital platforms. Section 69-A specifically refers to restrictions on contents, but the scope is highly controversial. In this case, as cited by the Mumbai court interpretation, criminal courts may intercede where the platform fails to act on the content of the defamation itself.
What’s in store for Sundar Pichai and Google?
Now, the contempt notice brings Sundar Pichai to the forefront and puts Google’s compliance practices in India into the limelight. The court now decides whether Google will be held guilty of contempt and what kind of punishments are in store for January 2025. For Google, the immediate task at hand would be to face such challenges and there is no end in sight as these legal battles keep nipping at the heels of tech companies to bolster the compliance mechanism and better comply with local laws.
A YouTube video sets huge implications against Sundar Pichai. That is a big sign about the world corporations and the heads that have increased levels of accountability. Case in point: This can create an important precedent about content moderation, platform accountability, and compliance while it unfurls through India’s digital framework.
