Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Andhra Pradesh High Court issued notice to Google, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY), and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MiB) subsequent to a petition filed by Youtuber Vinodh Kumar regarding the suspension of his 'String' accounts, and demanded compensation of Rs 2 crore.

Following a review of the arguments, the Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan instructed the aforementioned parties to respond within four weeks.

String, a privately owned company managed by Vinodh Kumar in Amaravati, operated in the realm of Indian journalism, purportedly wielding significant influence on Indian politics and history. It specializes in providing comprehensive news reports and opinions from various Indian regions through multimedia formats accessible on internet-enabled devices.

Represented by Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, the Youtuber contended that YouTube's enforcement system, which employs a three-strike mechanism for its community guidelines, was meant to maintain platform safety and decorum. However, the platform was using such guidelines to curb freedom of speech and expression. The petitioner's suspension stemmed from uploading a video titled “Video: Bill Gates EXPOSED- Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine SCAM I#BirthControl”, resulting in a one-week suspension. Subsequent reposting on “String Hindi” led to the termination of all petitioner's channels indefinitely. Moreover, the petitioner was prohibited from creating new channels with similar names and uploading videos.

Advocate Jha argued that as their viewership primarily relied on social media platforms, this suspension impeded their ability to disseminate information and counteract misinformation. Additionally, channels unrelated to the aforementioned video were terminated without valid justification by YouTube and Google. Despite receiving violation notifications after removing another video titled: “Arrest Rathee | Zubair | Barkha NOW ! (Greta Toolkit Exposed)”, Advocate Jha emphasized that no breaches were committed as per the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Furthermore, Advocate Jha contended that YouTube had failed in its obligation to regularly inform subscribers about platform guidelines. The petitioner cited the removal of their video titled "Hang Me If Guilty"- Modi [Godhra Riots] Part 2" for violating the hate speech policy and "Capital Punishment for Zubair or Nupur? [Single Handedly Responsible] Court Systems" for violating the policy against violence or graphic content. 

The petitioner informed the Court that he had lodged complaints with both the Grievance Redressal Cell of YouTube and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting regarding these actions. Additionally, he questioned whether his channel had the right to present opposing viewpoints to those of the platform and whether the channels had violated Part II Rule 3(1) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. 

Moreover, He sought the Court’s guidance on whether the arbitrary actions of a social media intermediary could restrict the fundamental right of speech and expression.

In response to String's arguments, the Court issued notice to all respondents, including Google, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY), and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MiB). 

Case Title: M/S String Art Private Limited Alphabet Inc. And Others (WP 11997/2024)