The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed News Television Network Pvt. Ltd., which operates News 8 Odia, to remove videos allegedly containing false claims that a senior railway officer had absconded from duty, along with doctored audio recordings purportedly of his conversations with staff members.
The Court also restrained the company from re-uploading or causing the disputed material to be re-uploaded through any account or channel under its control.
The Court considered the direction necessary to prevent the continued circulation of the disputed material while the police investigation was pending. It clarified that the direction did not reflect any opinion on the truth of the allegations or the culpability of any person.
The matter arose from a complaint alleging offences under Sections 469, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. These provisions deal with forgery intended to harm reputation, defamation, punishment for defamation, and breach of confidentiality and privacy, respectively.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sunitha Gandham disposed of a writ petition filed by a Divisional Railway Manager of the East Coast Railway, Waltair, Visakhapatnam.
The Court observed:
“Having regard to the submissions made, and in view of the fact that the investigation is pending, this Court considers it appropriate to issue a direction to prevent continued circulation of the disputed link while leaving the investigation to proceed in accordance with law. No opinion is expressed on the truth or otherwise of the disputed material, the allegations made in the complaint, or the culpability of any person. Those matters are for the competent authorities to consider in accordance with law and on the basis of the material collected during investigation.
Accordingly, respondent No. 7 is directed to remove the link or links relating to the disputed material that have been re-uploaded, insofar as they are within his control, and shall not re-upload or cause the same material to be re-uploaded through any account or channel under his control, pending further action in accordance with law. This direction is confined to the disputed material forming the subject matter of this writ petition and shall not be construed as a finding on the merits of the allegations.”
The dispute originated when the petitioner, after returning to duty following leave, allegedly learnt that a reporter associated with the channel had circulated his photographs and personal and family details, falsely portraying him as having absconded from duty.
He further claimed that the reporter had edited audio recordings purportedly of his conversations with staff members and circulated them through YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp groups, causing him public humiliation and damaging his reputation.
Apart from these allegations, the petitioner claimed that the reporter linked with the channel was attempting to extort money from him by exhibiting his photographs and personal details and sending indirect messages to that effect.
He sought removal of the disputed material, including a YouTube video titled “Odisha is condemning Anup Satpathy II News8odia II Odisha”, if it remained available, as well as measures to address identical copies and reuploads.
Following his complaint, the police registered a case and issued notices to YouTube and Facebook seeking information about those circulating the videos and requesting removal of the disputed links.
However, the petitioner alleged that the material continued to circulate despite these steps. He therefore approached the High Court seeking directions for its removal and for the online platforms to furnish the information sought by the investigating officer.
During the hearing, the investigating officer informed the Court that the investigation was still underway. The Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the person associated with the news channel had not been responding to police calls.
The investigating officer informed the Court that the investigation was still underway. The Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the person associated with the news channel had not been responding to police calls.
Counsel for YouTube submitted that the disputed link had previously been removed but the news channel had repeatedly reuploaded the same material. YouTube suggested that the petition could be disposed of by directing the channel to delete the reuploaded link.
In light of these submissions, the Court directed the news channel to remove the reuploaded links within its control and refrain from reuploading or causing the disputed material to be reuploaded. It also directed the news channel to cooperate with the investigation and respond to lawful notices, while leaving the investigating officer free to take further steps in accordance with law.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen
Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Home; Shireen Sethna Baria; D. Narendar Naik