Précédent 2 / 9 Next

identity of the plaintiff shall not be disclosed. 2. The application stands disposed of. CS(OS) 392/2021, I.As.10543/2021 (by the plaintiff u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for interim injunction) & 10546/2021 (by the plaintiff u/S 80(2) CPC seeking exemption from serving defendant) 1. Issue summons in the suit and notices in the applications. 2. Ms.Mamta Jha, Advocate, accepts summons and notices on behalf of the defendants No.69 and 70. 3. The remaining defendants be served by all permissible modes, returnable before the Joint Registrar. 4. The written statements to the suit and replies to the applications must be filed by the defendants within thirty days from the date of receipt of the summons. The defendants shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff is at liberty to file replication(s) to the written statements and rejoinder(s) to the replies filed by the defendants before the next date of hearing following the filing of the written statement(s)/reply(ies). The replication(s) shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendants. 6. Mr.Abhishek Malhotra, learned counsel for the plaintiff, urges this Court to grant interim protection against the publication/streaming/ broadcasting, etc., of the suit videos on the various URLs/ websites/mobile applications and other online platforms, portraying the Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 392/2021 Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:24.08.2021 22:42:46 Page 2 of 9

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

X v. YouTube

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (Lié Case Law): India

Decision Date: 23 août 2021

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction or Order Granted

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Intermediary Liability
Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images
Privacy
Right to be Forgotten

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Court Name: High Court of Delhi

Case Number: CS(OS) 392/2021

Case Summary: On 23 August 2021, the High Court of Delhi upheld an actor’s right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and directed internet intermediaries as well as websites to take down the explicit videos of the actor which had been uploaded on to multiple video-sharing platforms without her consent. The actor sued the defendants after they failed to remove multiple explicit clips of her, which were originally filmed for the purposes of a potential lead role in a web series. While the producer of the videos took down his footage soon after the actor complained, the defendants did not – which the actor argued was in breach of her right to be forgotten and, more broadly, her right to privacy. While the actor may have consented to the shooting, the Court found her consent to have since been expressly withdrawn, as the producer of the series had also removed the videos upon her request. Although the Court was conscious that there is no statutory right to be forgotten, it ultimately held that the actor’s right to privacy deserved protection. This was especially so following the clear and immediate effect on, and irreparable harm to, her personal and professional life, when the videos depicting her in a sexual nature had been circulated against her will.

Case Significance: This interim decision of the High Court has significant importance until appealed against and modified by a larger bench of the High Court. The decision considers right to be forgotten as an essential and inherent aspect of an individual’s right to privacy which is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The decision has a significant impact and influence on all other constitutional as well as lower courts which are faced with the legal issue of enforcing right to be forgotten, particularly in sensitive cases, despite the absence of any statutory protection to the right. Indeed, in this case the Court categorically held that the right to privacy of the Plaintiff has to be protected, “especially when it is her person that is being exhibited, and against her will.” The case also casts an impact on the legislature, highlighting the need to enforce and implement the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 so that right to be forgotten can be effectively given effect to, without it being merely an exception in cases of judicial intervention.

Although the decision technically limits freedom of expression by ordering the Suit Videos to be taken down, it is fundamentally not at odds with the right to freedom of expression in a democratic society. Rather, as has been stipulated in countless judgments worldwide, the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression can coincide and coexist naturally, so long as the rights of the individual are sufficiently protected and the need for disclosure is not in the public interest. In this case, the right to privacy was clearly paramount and the Court considered there was no valid argument (at least in the interim) to maintain the Suit Videos online for public viewing, at great personal and professional expense to the plaintiff.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Related Caselaw (self)

Related Law

Constitution of India, 1950

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 3 juil. 2024

Documents principaux

High Court Order
English
Télécharger Vue