Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court has passed an interim order prohibiting the editing, uploading, reposting and monetisation of recordings of judicial proceedings on social
The present application arose because the earlier order did not expressly refer to 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos that were mentioned in Para 10 of the plaint, although according to Isha Foundation these videos formed part of the original cause of action and contained content substantially identical to the impugned videos already directed to be taken down.
“As per the YouTube Policy, Strike Notices are not capable of affording resolution of the disputes between the parties on the aspect of the infringement of the copyright.”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Court noted that in absence of any specific allegations against Google India regarding derogatory material on their website the respondent cannot proceed against them.
by Gautam Khazanchi* and Vinayak Chawla**
On 06-03-2025, the Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to Shuhaib.
The Court underscored the necessity of concrete evidence in criminal prosecutions, particularly in cases involving digital content. The ruling reinforces those mere allegations, unsupported by forensic proof or substantial material, cannot justify the continuation of criminal proceedings.
“The video recorded by Defendant 1 is extremely offensive, sexually explicit, foul and filthy utterances were made in the said video by Defendant 1 against the plaintiffs, which per se shocks the conscience of the court.”
BJP’s Mumbai spokesperson Suresh Karamshi Nakhua filed a defamation suit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee for his video titled ‘My Reply to Godi Youtubers’.
Several defamatory statements were made against Malabar Gold Ltd. by Respondent 1 on his YouTube channel titled “Marunadan Malayali”.
It was said that the allegations asserted did not seem to be premised on a public record document such as a criminal case that was registered or pending against Dhanya Rajendran.
The Calcutta High Court, in a previous order, requested the parties to consider resolving the dispute by blurring out or removing fruit juice packets deceptively similar to Dabur’s ‘Real’ fruit juice from the impugned video.
“A thin line of distinction exists between defamation and public criticism and an onerous task lies with the Courts to maintain this delicate balance between the competing claims and rights.”
Several members of Aam Aadmi Party including members of various other opposition parties made an audio and video recording of Court proceedings which had been circulated on various social media platforms.
The press and the Media had a duty to report the incident for the benefit of the public, but there is also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The deepfake videos showing plaintiff being beaten up are nothing but an over-sensationalisation and depiction of facts which are patently false.
In 2021 Madras High Court granted bail to Sattai. Later, a Division Bench of High Court cancelled the bail. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to him, and he has been out on bail since then.
Dhruv Rathee uploaded a video on his YouTube channel claiming that the consumption of packaged fruit juices leads to type II diabetes and that drinking packaged fruit juices leads to hair loss and is harmful if consumed.
This is another case which serves as a reminder to those in positions of power and influence whose words and deeds have a wider reach and impact on the citizenry of this country.
As per a status report dated 20-11-2023, the use of the mark ‘AAJ TAK’ has been disabled on all channels, and the domain names have been either suspended, locked or blocked.