The Delhi High Court directed the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide within 15 days an appeal seeking removal of Dhruv Rathee’s YouTube video alleging Hindu deities consumed meat and alcohol. The Court warned that any non-compliance with its order would be viewed seriously.
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Central government’s Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to decide, within 15 days, a pending appeal seeking the removal of a YouTube video uploaded by content creator Dhruv Rathee, in which he allegedly claimed that Hindu deities Lord Ram, Seeta and Lord Krishna consumed meat and alcohol. The Court instructed that the Committee’s decision must be communicated to it immediately after it is passed.
The order was passed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who made it clear that the timeline fixed by the Court must be strictly adhered to. Stressing the importance of compliance, the Court observed that the GAC’s decision must be taken “under intimation to this court” and warned that “any disregard of this order will be taken note of seriously”.
The matter came before the High Court on a petition filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who challenged the continued availability of Rathee’s video on YouTube. The petition concerns a video uploaded on March 21, 2026, titled “Can Hindus Eat BEEF? | Kerala Story 2 EXPOSED“, in which Rathee allegedly made remarks regarding the dietary practices of revered figures in Hinduism.
According to Sachdeva, the video falsely asserted that Lord Ram, Seeta and Lord Krishna consumed meat and alcohol, thereby hurting the religious sentiments of millions of Hindus. She argued that the statements were factually incorrect, offensive to the followers of Sanatan Dharma, and capable of creating communal disharmony. The plea further described the video as “highly derogatory, inflammatory and communally sensitive”, contending that it disclosed cognizable offences under Sections 196, 299 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The case also brought attention to the role of the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), a statutory body established by the Central government under the Information Technology Rules. The Committee serves as an appellate mechanism for users who are dissatisfied with the decisions of social media platforms and other online intermediaries regarding complaints related to digital content or user accounts.
Sachdeva had earlier approached the platform seeking action against the video. After receiving a response from Google, which owns YouTube, she filed an appeal before the GAC challenging the platform’s decision. Since that appeal remained pending, the High Court directed the Committee to dispose of it within the stipulated period.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Central government, argued that YouTube, as an intermediary, was under a statutory obligation to exercise due diligence in dealing with objectionable content uploaded on its platform.
Sharma submitted that the content in question was harmful and capable of creating social divisions. He argued that the intermediary ought to have voluntarily removed the video instead of allowing it to remain online.
Sharma submitted before the Court,
“Either Google says they will do it [take down the video] now, or my ladyship may pass a judgement based on what the Division Bench has said… He [Google’s counsel] should take it down and say he will not permit the such fissiparious content that hurts the sentiments of the majority community,”
Representing Google, counsel informed the Court that the company had already responded to Sachdeva’s complaint through the prescribed mechanism. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had subsequently exercised her statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee, which was awaiting adjudication.
Taking note of this submission, the High Court refrained from passing any immediate direction to YouTube regarding the removal of the video. Instead, it directed the GAC to decide the appeal within 15 days, while making it clear that the Committee’s decision must be communicated to the Court and that non-compliance with its direction would be viewed seriously.
Apart from the writ proceedings before the High Court, Sachdeva has also initiated criminal proceedings against Dhruv Rathee before a metropolitan magistrate in Delhi.
In the criminal complaint, she alleged that Rathee had deliberately misrepresented Hindu scriptures, insulted the sanctity of Sanatan Dharma, and promoted communal disharmony by linking religious beliefs with debates surrounding caste and dietary practices. The magistrate hearing the complaint has already sought an Action Taken Report (ATR) from the police regarding the allegations.
The outcome of both the GAC proceedings and the criminal complaint could have significant implications for the regulation of online content dealing with religious issues and the responsibilities of digital intermediaries in addressing complaints relating to allegedly offensive material.
The matter before the High Court is expected to be taken up again after the Grievance Appellate Committee files its decision in compliance with the Court’s directions.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE