Delhi High Court Sets 15-Day Deadline for Government Panel to Rule on Dhruv Rathee Video Plea
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Centre's Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to decide within 15 days an appeal seeking the removal of YouTuber Dhruv Rathee's video titled “Can Hindus Eat BEEF? | Kerala Story 2 EXPOSED”. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the order while hearing a petition filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who has challenged the video's continued availability on YouTube.
The court cautioned that any disregard of its order would be viewed seriously, indicating the importance of timely resolution in such matters.
Ms. Sachdeva’s petition contends that the video, uploaded on March 21, 2026, contains statements allegedly claiming that Hindu deities Lord Ram, Sita, and Lord Krishna consumed meat and alcohol. She argues that these statements are “patently false, misleading and deliberately distorted” and capable of promoting communal disharmony.
“In this video, he deliberately makes highly offensive, false, and malicious statements insulting the divine character of Bhagwan Shri Ram, Seeta Mata, Bhagwan Shri Krishna and other revered Hindu icons by claiming that they consumed non-vegetarian food (including deer meat) and alcohol, while citing selective or distorted references from Hindu scriptures like Ramayana and Mahabharata,” her plea stated.
The petitioner sought either a direction to the GAC, which operates under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), to decide the pending appeal, or alternatively, an order directing the removal of the video from YouTube.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma argued that either YouTube should remove the video or the court should pass appropriate directions for its removal, contending that the content disparages Hindu deities.
Google’s counsel informed the court that the company had already responded to Ms. Sachdeva’s grievance and that she had subsequently filed an appeal before the GAC, which remains pending. Taking note of the submissions, the court directed the GAC to dispose of the appeal within 15 days.
According to the petition, Ms. Sachdeva initially lodged a complaint with the Cyber Crime Cell on March 22, 2026, followed by a grievance before YouTube’s Resident Grievance Officer on March 23. After YouTube declined to remove the content, stating they were unable to identify any violations of their community guidelines, Ms. Sachdeva approached the GAC on March 27.
The petition alleges that despite the Information Technology rules requiring appeals to be resolved expeditiously, preferably within 30 days, the appeal remained undecided for more than two and a half months. Parallel criminal proceedings are also underway. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, on June 9 called for an Action Taken Report from the Delhi Police on her application seeking registration of an FIR.
This case highlights the ongoing tensions between free speech on digital platforms and the need to address alleged inflammatory content that may affect religious sentiments. The High Court's intervention seeks to ensure that the grievance redress mechanism functions efficiently within the statutory framework.
