Aaradhya Bachchan v. Bollywood Time

Delhi High Court has directed the you tube channels and Bollywood time to restrain from creating, uploading, publishing, sharing, disseminating or transmitting videos relating to physical condition of Plaintiff 1 Aaradhya Bachchan, daughter of Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Bachchan and granddaughter of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan. Ad interim relief has been granted in this regard without waiting for a response from the defendants to prevent further prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The court also directed the Defendant 10, i.e. Google LLC to disclose to the plaintiff the identity and all contact details of Defendants (YouTube channels indulged in violation of plaintiffs rights)  including their Basic Subscriber Information (BSI), name, email IDs, IP address and all other information presently available with Google LLC. The court has also directed Google LLC to delist and deactivate all the videos fallen under the subject matter.

The court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) defendant 11 to block access to the contents uploaded by youtubers as well as to any other similar videos or clips containing similar contents.

Brief Facts

The grievance of Plaintiff 1 Aaradhya Bachchan was filed through her father Plaintiff 2 Abhishek Bachchan that, “you tube channels have breached Plaintiff 1’s right to privacy and violated Rule 3(1)(b)(iii) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (―the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules), as amended in 2022 by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2022 (―the 2022 Amendment Rules‖) and also violated the intellectual property rights, which vests in the Bachchan family, including copyright in the images and pictures of the plaintiffs.

Grievance of the plaintiffs is that, the videos circulated by YouTube channels used apparently morphed pictures to show that Plaintiff 1 is critically ill, to the extent that one of the videos even claimed that she was no more. One of the videos even showing a child surrounded by wreaths. The videos also invite subscriptions from those who are viewing them”.  

Contentions on behalf of plaintiffs

Mr. Dayan Krishnan, on behalf of plaintiffs contended that, “The plaintiffs right to privacy is violated as per Rule 3(1)(b)(iii) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Dependents have violated intellectual property rights, which vests in the Bachchan family, including copyright in the images and pictures of the plaintiffs. Every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect, be she the child of a celebrity or the child of a commoner. Dissemination of misleading information relating to a child, especially as regards her physical or mental wellbeing, is something which is completely intolerable in law”.

Counsel further stated that, “the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules only requires the intermediary to call upon its user to draw up an agreement undertaking not to post the excepted categories of contents, the amended 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules further requires the intermediary to ―make reasonable efforts to cause the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any such information. The words ―and shall make reasonable efforts to cause the user of its computer resource‖ have been introduced by the 2022 Amendment Rules. As such, he submits that the intermediary can no longer claim to be a mere passive spectator regarding the information which is uploaded on its platform, but is required to be more proactive in nature. The intermediary, in order to be in conformity with the amended 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules, is also required to make reasonable efforts to cause the user of its computer resource, i.e., in the case of a video clip posted on the YouTube, the person who posts the clip, not to host, display or upload any of the excepted categories of information”.

Contentions on behalf of plaintiffs

Ms. Mamta Rani Jha on behalf of Google LLC, contended that Google LLC which runs the YouTube platform has no control over the content of the videos which are posted on the YouTube platform, as the videos are not screened by her client before they are posted. Counsel further submitted that though YouTube has a zero-tolerance policy with respect to certain exceptional cases such as child pornography and other such content, for which they have a special mechanism in place, in respect of other information, the only remedial mechanism available is for a person, who may object to the information posted on YouTube to bring it to the notice of the Google LLC, whereupon measures would be taken to take down the offending contents. The counsel submitted that on such a complaint was received from Plaintiff 1’s father, steps were being taken in accordance with law.

The counsel on the question of reasonable effort has stated that, “reasonable effort has to be interpreted in terms of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (―the IT Act).

Judgment

1.The court directed the Google LLC (defendant No.10) to the identity and disclose to the plaintiffs all contact details of youtubers, including their Basic Subscriber Information (BSI), name, email IDs, IP address and all other information presently available with the defendant.

2. Directed the Google LLC to delist and deactivate all the videos dealing with the physical health and well-being of Plaintiff 1.

3. Directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block access to contents, uploaded by Defendants as well as to any other similar videos or clips containing similar contents.

Case Title: Aaradhya Bachchan v. Bollywood Time

Justices: C.HARI SHANKAR, J

Citation: CS(COMM) 230/2023