Meta, Google Tell Delhi High Court They Cannot Proactively Monitor and Remove Unauthorized Court Hearing Videos
Tech Giants Say Indian Law Requires Action Only After Specific Notice; Court Examines Responsibilities of Digital Platforms
In a significant case concerning online content moderation and judicial proceedings, Google LLC and Meta Platforms have informed the Delhi High Court that they cannot be legally required to proactively identify, monitor, or remove unauthorized videos of court proceedings circulating on social media platforms. The companies argued that Indian law does not impose a general obligation on intermediaries to continuously monitor user-generated content before it is reported.
The submissions were made in response to a petition seeking stronger action against the unauthorized recording and dissemination of court hearing videos. The matter relates to the alleged circulation of clips from proceedings in a case involving former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, where recordings of court hearings were allegedly uploaded and shared across social media platforms without authorization.
Google, which operates YouTube, stated that it functions only as an intermediary hosting content uploaded by users and neither creates nor exercises editorial control over such material. The company argued that monitoring millions of videos before or immediately after upload is technologically and legally impracticable, and that the responsibility for unlawful uploads primarily rests with those who publish the content.
Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, advanced a similar position. The company submitted that while it promptly removes unlawful content once it receives valid legal notice or a judicial direction, there is no statutory mandate requiring intermediaries to proactively search for and prevent every possible re-upload of allegedly unauthorized content. Both companies emphasized that India’s intermediary liability framework is based on a “notice-and-takedown” mechanism rather than continuous pre-screening of user content.
The technology companies also relied on the protections available to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which limits intermediary liability unless unlawful content is brought to their attention through appropriate legal channels. They argued that imposing a proactive monitoring obligation would effectively convert digital platforms into permanent content censors, contrary to the statutory framework.
During the proceedings, the companies informed the Court that the specific URLs identified by the petitioner had already been disabled or removed. However, they maintained that preventing future uploads or automatically detecting every similar video across their platforms is not feasible because identical or modified content may be repeatedly uploaded by different users in varying formats.
The Delhi High Court is also examining whether additional safeguards are necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of court proceedings in the digital age. The Court has sought information regarding the original uploaders of the disputed videos while considering the extent of obligations that can legally be imposed on online intermediaries.
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for India’s evolving digital regulatory landscape. A ruling expanding the obligations of intermediaries may influence how platforms respond to judicial content, whereas reaffirming the existing notice-and-takedown regime would reinforce the balance currently maintained between platform liability, freedom of expression, and technological feasibility under Indian law.
