The Kerala High Court, after viewing the video in open court, directed the temporary blocking of a social media clip containing remarks about the Sabarimala deities, holding prima facie that the allegation of scandalous and indecent speech stood substantiated.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the temporary blocking of a social media video containing remarks about the Sabarimala deities Lord Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma, after viewing the clip in open court and holding, prima facie, that the petitioner’s allegation of scandalous and indecent speech about the deities was substantiated [Rahul Easwar v. Union of India and Others].
Justice G. Girish passed the interim order on a plea by activist Rahul Easwar, which sought the takedown of the video and action against the person alleged to have made the remarks. The allegations are, at this stage, untested beyond the Court’s prima facie view for the limited purpose of interim relief; the matter remains pending, and LawChakra is not reproducing the content of the remarks.
The Court views the video before acting
The hearing was notable for the care the Court took before passing any order. When the matter came up in the morning, Justice Girish orally indicated that orders would be passed only after verifying the contents of the video at the URL mentioned in the plea. The Court then viewed the video in open court, with the assistance of its technical staff, before proceeding to dictate an interim order.
Recording that it had examined the clip, the Court held:
“Having today viewed the objectionable video with the assistance of the technical staff of this court in open court, it appears that the allegation of the petitioner herein about the scandalous and indecent speech made by the respondent about the deities of Sabarimala temple is found to be substantiated.”
The Court observed that the continuance of the video on the social media platform would definitely hurt the religious beliefs of the worshippers of the deities, and on that basis directed the fourth respondent, the platform, to temporarily block and disable public access to the video at the URL in question.
A narrow, URL-specific order
Justice Girish was careful to confine the direction to the specific content before him, rather than impose any general monitoring obligation on the intermediary. He observed that he was confining the order “only to this URL,” acknowledging the platform’s position that it would not be in a position to scrutinise all such uploads. Counsel for the petitioner said he would verify whether there were any other URLs, and requested that the matter be kept pending with the present order operating as an interim measure.
The Court clarified that this was only an interim order and posted the matter for hearing after three weeks.
The restraint in confining the takedown to a single, identified URL reflects the settled position on intermediary liability, that platforms respond to specific, identified unlawful content rather than being saddled with a general duty to pre-screen everything users upload. By pinning the order to one URL and declining to require broader scrutiny, the Court balanced the immediate grievance against the practical and legal limits on what an intermediary can be ordered to do.
Why the order matters
The order sits at the intersection of two competing values that Indian courts are increasingly asked to reconcile: the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the protection of religious sentiment, which the Constitution and the penal law recognise within defined limits. The law does not treat every offensive or irreverent statement about religion as actionable; deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings occupy a narrow, specific category, and courts have cautioned against an expansive reading that would chill legitimate debate, criticism or satire concerning religion. What made the Court willing to act here, on its own account, was that it did not take the allegation at face value but viewed the material itself and formed a prima facie view that the speech was scandalous and indecent rather than merely critical.
That methodology, verifying the content in open court before restraining it, is itself the significant feature of the order, and a safeguard against takedown by assertion. An interim blocking order restrains speech before any final adjudication, so the interest in free expression demands that a court satisfy itself, on the actual material, that the threshold is met, rather than order a takedown on the strength of a complaint alone. The order is expressly interim and confined to one URL; the larger questions, including the tenability of any action against the individual said to have made the remarks and the ultimate balance between expression and religious sentiment, remain to be examined when the matter returns in three weeks. Nothing has been finally decided, and the person alleged to have made the remarks is yet to be heard.
Case Title: Rahul Easwar v. Union of India and Others
Bench: Justice G. Girish, Kerala High Court
Date of Order: September 10, 2026