[Bollywood Vs Republic And Times Now] Live Updates From Delhi High Court

Senior Adv Sandeep Sethi appears for TimesNow, Navika Kumar, and R Shivshankar

'There are 38 plaintiffs before the court out of which 35 are companies', he points out 

Senior Adv Sajan Poovayya: I don't understand why Twitter India is made a party to this suit. Twitter doesn't control the content posted on the website

Nigam: When Defendants are directed to remove videos, then remove them, I don't come into this picture. Only when they don't comply, that YouTube comes into the picture with geo-blocking 

Nigam: If defendants are directed to remove their videos, YouTube as an intermediary doesn't come into this picture 

Nigam: When the complaining person is not before the court, this becomes shadow-boxing against a general corporate entity 

Senior Adv Arvind Nigam argues that Google , YouTube have not been served adequate notice and papers

'There's no reason for YouTube to be a party in this when Google is already a party', he argues

Court: We aspect clear reportage and neutrality. But this kind of reportage is taking place all over the world

Court reminisces about the Doordarshan days, 'Those were the lovely days', court says 

Akhil Sibal: Idea is not to attack media as a whole, the idea is to ensure some course correction. It can't continue like this

'We're not against the 4th estate, we're afraid of fringe becoming the mainstream'

Akhil Sibal: Times Now and Republic represent 70% of the English visual media. Their virulent attack increases the vulnerability of the plaintiffs

Akhil Sibal: There's a malicious attack against Bollywood as a whole, that's why the Association has come together and come forward to protect the interests of its members as a whole