completely intolerable in law. No technicalities can come in the way of the Court stepping in, where such attempts are brought to its notice. 6. Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, learned Counsel, who appears for Google LLC, which runs the YouTube platform, submits that her client 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. She submits 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. She submits that on such a complaint having been received from Plaintiff 1’s father, steps were being taken in accordance with law. 7. The submission is plainly unacceptable. 8. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, has drawn my attention to the fact that the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules were amended by the 2022 Amendment Rules, and that Rule 3(1)(b) of the amended 2021 Intermediary Guidelines Rules reads thus: ―3(1) Due diligence by an intermediary: An intermediary, including social media intermediary, significant social media intermediary and online gaming intermediary, shall observe the following due diligence while discharging its duties, namely:— ***** Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(COMM) Signing Date:21.04.2023 08:06:01 230/2023 Page 3 of 15