instructions in respect of the following: ―(i) Whether the identity of a person uploading the video is shown on YouTube at the beginning or end of the video and if not —for what reason? (a) Can any video which is uploaded on YouTube be edited by YouTube?‖ On 5th April, 2019, in view of the technical submissions made, the parties were directed to keep one technically qualified person to be present in Court during the arguments. On 28th, May, 2019, ld. Counsel appearing for Defendant No. 2- Google Inc. was also directed to clarify as to in what manner geo-blocking is effected on the YouTube platform. 5. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Court, some written notes have been placed on record by Facebook, Google LLC and Twitter in respect of geo-blocking. The note filed by Facebook was referred to during oral submissions. The remaining defendants have however filed the same only along with their written submissions and no reference was made during arguments to the same. For the sake of completeness, the same are however being considered. 6. None of the Defendants have any objection to blocking the URLs and disabling the same, insofar as access in India is concerned. However, all the Defendant platforms have raised objections to removal/blocking/disabling the impugned content on a global basis. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs argued that blocking merely for the Indian territory alone is not sufficient as the content would be accessible through international websites, which can be accessed in India. Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, for the remedy to be effective, a global blocking order ought to be passed. 7. It is on the question or whether geo-blocking is sufficient, under these CS (OS) 27/2019 Page 4 of 76