Google Tells Delhi HC YouTube Can't Be Directed To Monitor Or Block Unauthorised Court Videos, Cites Safe Harbour

Google LLC has told the Delhi High Court that it cannot be asked to keep a constant watch over YouTube or guarantee that unauthorised recordings of court hearings never resurface on the platform, arguing that as an intermediary it has no role in creating or controlling what third parties upload.

The submission came in an affidavit filed in a writ petition over the circulation of videos from the April 13 hearing in the recusal plea moved by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, heard before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. Google maintained that YouTube functions purely as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and that liability for unlawful content should fall on the uploader, not the platform.

The company told the Court that the reliefs sought by the petitioner, asking platforms to stop such recordings from recurring, track re-uploads and face penalties for lapses, were "legally untenable, vague and incapable of implementation." Google said court hearings are filmed by individuals outside its systems, and YouTube has no practical way of knowing whether an upload shows court proceedings, was recorded without permission, or breaches rules that differ from one court to another.

Under settled law, Google argued, YouTube's obligation is limited to disabling specific web addresses once a competent court holds the content there unlawful. It cannot be made to sift through millions of uploads searching for possibly unauthorised recordings, nor can it be expected to anticipate and block videos before they are posted.

Google also apprised the Court that of the nine URLs named in the petition, several were already blocked in India or had become inaccessible before the interim order of April 23, 2026. After the Court's directions, it blocked the rest of the identified links purely as a precaution, adding that no further URLs have since been flagged by the petitioner.

The affidavit stresses that YouTube neither publishes nor endorses user content and cannot be turned into an adjudicator of legality. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Google submitted that an intermediary gains "actual knowledge" of unlawful content only through a court order or a government notification, and cannot be forced to form its own view. It added that Section 79 of the IT Act grants intermediaries safe harbour protection, which cannot be diluted by imposing a proactive monitoring duty.

Any order for taking down content, Google said, must point to particular URLs; open-ended directions asking platforms to monitor uploads or prevent recurrence would chill free expression and run counter to settled precedent. It added that responsibility for removal should rest first with those who create and publish the material, after they are heard, rather than with intermediaries such as itself. The affidavit asks that the plea be dismissed as far as Google is concerned.

The Delhi High Court had previously ordered the removal of every social media link carrying footage of the April 13 hearing. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora had also added the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology as a respondent and issued notice to all parties, including Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and journalist Ravish Kumar.

The plea, moved by advocate Vaibhav Singh, alleges that the April 13 hearing was filmed and shared widely on social media without authorisation, in clear breach of the Delhi High Court's Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. The Court had observed that recording and posting proceedings without permission is barred under its own rules, directing that any surviving links be taken down and that platforms remove videos flagged to them going forward, informing the Registrar General each time.

Case Title: Vaibhav Singh v. Delhi High Court and Ors.

Date of Hearing: July 6, 2026

Bench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Inputs from Economic Times