legrandangle-lgm

However, the Court rejected YouTube’s technical objections and stated that the IT Act does not explicitly prohibit criminal courts from intervening in such cases.

“To the extent that the authorities submitted by the respondent are useful to me. The procedure is mentioned at the authorities mentioned. However, nowhere is it stated that the criminal court has no jurisdiction to hear such a request. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the ratio of the above authorities will not hinder the maintainability of the current application” the order said.

The magistrate noted that the defamatory nature of the video was undisputed and that its continued circulation could damage public peace.

“The feelings of followers of any organization in India are very sensitive, especially when it comes to faith. If these videos are not restricted, it could pose a threat to public order and security of the state.” said the Court.