The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to consider any fresh complaints seeking the removal of YouTube videos and other online publications allegedly containing derogatory, inflammatory and communally provocative content concerning Shirdi Sai Baba. The direction was issued by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma while hearing a fresh application filed by the Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi, in its ongoing proceedings seeking removal of objectionable digital content relating to Sai Baba. The Court also issued notice to the Union Government on the fresh application and directed that any further fresh complaint filed by the Trust should be considered by the appropriate authority. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 7, 2026.
The proceedings arise from a broader dispute concerning allegedly objectionable content being circulated through digital platforms, particularly YouTube. The Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust approached the Delhi High Court complaining that several online videos and articles contained statements and descriptions concerning Shirdi Sai Baba which, according to the Trust, were derogatory, inflammatory and capable of creating religious hostility and communal disharmony. The Trust sought appropriate directions for removal of such material from online platforms. The proceedings therefore involve questions concerning online content, intermediary grievance mechanisms, religious sentiments and the role of governmental authorities in dealing with complaints concerning potentially harmful digital material.
According to the Trust's petition, several YouTube channels had started publishing the allegedly objectionable material around March. The Trust claimed that the content portrayed Sai Baba using various allegedly offensive descriptions and accusations. Among the descriptions referred to in the petition were references to Sai Baba as “Chand Miyan”, a “Jihadi”, a British spy, murderer, rapist, dacoit and religious converter. The Trust contended that the publication of such allegations and descriptions against a figure revered by devotees had the potential to hurt religious sentiments and create communal tension.
The Trust initially attempted to resolve the matter through YouTube's own grievance redressal mechanism. According to the petition, complaints were submitted to YouTube on July 15, July 17 and July 19 concerning the allegedly objectionable material. However, the Trust stated that the complaints were rejected. It was allegedly informed by YouTube that the Trust should either approach the individual uploaders or obtain an appropriate order from the High Court. The Trust therefore proceeded to seek governmental and judicial intervention after its attempts through the platform's internal mechanism did not result in the removal of all the disputed content.
The Trust subsequently submitted a representation to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on July 26. It also approached the Grievance Appellate Committee, or GAC, by filing an appeal on July 29. The GAC is part of the mechanism through which users and complainants can challenge decisions relating to grievances against online content. The Trust's approach to the GAC became an important part of the proceedings because the Delhi High Court had earlier directed the Union Government's Grievance Appellate Committee to consider the Trust's complaints and pass an appropriate order.
Earlier in August, the Delhi High Court had already intervened in the matter by directing the GAC to examine the complaints filed by the Trust. The fresh proceedings therefore did not begin from an entirely new dispute. Instead, they formed part of continuing litigation in which the Trust was seeking removal of additional online material as well as compliance with decisions concerning material that had already been brought before the authorities. The latest application was filed because the Trust identified further links and publications which it alleged were similarly derogatory and inflammatory.
During the latest hearing, counsel appearing for the Central Government informed the Court that the GAC had already passed an order on August 13. According to the government's submission, the GAC had directed removal of the videos and online articles that were the subject of the earlier complaints. This indicated that the governmental grievance appellate mechanism had considered the Trust's complaints and had found grounds for directing removal of the disputed material. The GAC's decision consequently became an important development in the proceedings before the High Court.
However, the Trust informed the High Court that the problem had not been completely resolved despite the GAC's direction. Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, appearing for the Trust, submitted that some videos had still not been taken down. He specifically informed the Court that seven YouTube videos remained accessible and that certain articles were also still available online. The Trust therefore argued that an order directing removal would have limited practical effect if the concerned platform did not actually comply with it.
The Trust particularly criticised YouTube's handling of the complaints. Counsel submitted that “YouTube is the problem” and contended that the platform was not taking adequate steps to remove the disputed material. The Trust also raised a concern regarding limitations on the number of complaints that could be filed. According to the submission, the existence of additional allegedly objectionable material and restrictions on complaints created difficulties in obtaining effective redressal against each piece of content.
The GAC's findings were also brought to the Court's attention during the hearing. According to the Trust's counsel, the GAC had observed that the disputed content had the tendency to hurt religious sentiments and was detrimental to communal harmony. The GAC further considered that if such content continued to circulate in the same manner, it could spread widely and result in serious repercussions. These observations formed an important part of the Trust's argument that the disputed material should be removed expeditiously rather than being allowed to remain accessible while the proceedings continued.
The Delhi High Court, while considering the fresh application, did not itself issue an immediate blanket order directing removal of every newly identified item of content. Instead, it issued notice to the Union Government and sought its response. This approach allows the government and the relevant authorities to address the complaints through the statutory grievance mechanism while keeping the judicial proceedings open for further consideration. The Court's direction therefore reflects a coordinated approach involving the judicial process and the governmental mechanism established for dealing with online-content grievances.
Importantly, the Court directed that if any further fresh complaint is filed in the meantime, the appropriate authority should look into it. This direction is significant because the Trust has alleged that new links and online publications continue to emerge. Rather than requiring the Trust to approach the High Court every time it identifies another allegedly objectionable publication, the Court has indicated that fresh complaints should first be examined by the competent authority. This can help ensure that the grievance redressal mechanism remains available as an immediate avenue for dealing with new content.
The Court's direction also demonstrates the distinction between existing complaints and new complaints. The GAC had already passed an order on August 13 concerning earlier material, but the Trust alleged that further content had subsequently become available. The fresh application therefore sought action against additional links. By directing the appropriate authority to examine any further fresh complaint, the Court has provided a mechanism for continuing scrutiny of newly identified content without necessarily reopening every earlier issue from the beginning.
The dispute raises important questions concerning the responsibilities of online platforms when they receive complaints about allegedly derogatory or inflammatory content. Under the applicable intermediary grievance framework, platforms are expected to maintain mechanisms through which users can report content and seek appropriate remedies. The present proceedings demonstrate the difficulties that can arise when a complainant alleges that the platform's internal mechanism has failed to provide effective relief. The Trust's complaint that certain videos remained online despite the GAC's direction highlights the practical distinction between obtaining an order for removal and ensuring actual implementation of that order.
The proceedings also involve the sensitive balance between freedom of expression and protection against content that may cause serious harm to religious sentiments or communal harmony. The Court has not, at this stage, made a final determination on the legality of all the disputed statements. Instead, it has required the competent authorities to examine the complaints. The ultimate question concerning whether particular content violates applicable law will depend on the nature of the material, the context in which it was published and the relevant legal standards governing online expression.
The Trust's allegations are particularly serious because the disputed publications are claimed to attribute criminal, extremist or otherwise deeply derogatory characteristics to a religious figure. The Trust contends that such descriptions are not merely matters of historical or theological debate but are presented in a manner capable of offending devotees and creating communal hostility. The GAC's reported observations concerning the potential impact on religious sentiments and communal harmony provide additional context to the Trust's demand for removal.
At the same time, the High Court's interim approach demonstrates that allegations concerning online content must continue to be processed through an appropriate legal and administrative framework. The Court has not simply directed that all material identified by the Trust must automatically be removed. Instead, it has required the government and appropriate authority to consider the complaints and respond. This allows the authorities to examine each complaint according to the applicable legal requirements and determine whether removal or another appropriate measure is warranted.
The case also highlights the growing importance of grievance appellate mechanisms in disputes involving social-media and video-sharing platforms. The Trust's experience illustrates how a complainant may move through several stages: first approaching the platform's internal grievance mechanism, then approaching the government or appellate authority, and finally seeking judicial intervention when the dispute remains unresolved. The Delhi High Court's involvement therefore forms part of a broader institutional framework for resolving disputes concerning online content.
Another significant aspect is the Court's response to the allegation that some content remained accessible even after the GAC's order. If a government authority directs removal but the content remains online, questions can arise concerning compliance and enforcement. The Trust's submission that seven YouTube videos and articles were still accessible places practical implementation at the centre of the dispute. The Court may have to examine this issue further after receiving the Union Government's response.
The next stage of the proceedings will therefore be important. The Delhi High Court has listed the matter for September 7, 2026, by which time the Union Government is expected to respond to the fresh application. The Court may then consider the status of the disputed material, the steps taken by the GAC and other authorities, and the Trust's allegations regarding continued availability of certain videos and articles. The response from the government could also clarify the steps being taken to implement the August 13 GAC order.
The case is titled Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi v. Union of India & Ors. The Trust is represented by Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey along with a team of advocates. The proceedings are being heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.
From a broader legal perspective, the matter illustrates how courts are increasingly being called upon to address disputes involving religiously sensitive digital content. The internet allows videos and articles to reach large audiences rapidly, and content that one party considers offensive or inflammatory can remain accessible across multiple platforms and channels. Consequently, judicial proceedings may involve not only the legality of the original publication but also the effectiveness of grievance mechanisms and the ability of platforms to implement takedown directions.
The Delhi High Court's latest order does not finally determine whether all the content identified by the Trust is legally objectionable. Instead, the Court has ensured that the fresh complaints receive consideration from the competent authority. This is particularly important because the Trust alleges that new material continues to appear and that some earlier material remains accessible despite an order directing removal. The Court's direction attempts to ensure that the administrative grievance mechanism remains responsive to such developments.
The matter also demonstrates that obtaining judicial or administrative relief is only one part of the process in online-content disputes. Effective enforcement and compliance are equally important. The Trust's submission that seven videos had not been removed despite the GAC's direction illustrates the difficulties that may arise when content is distributed through large digital platforms. The Court may therefore be required to consider not only whether the complaints have been properly adjudicated but also whether the resulting directions have actually been implemented.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to consider any fresh complaints seeking removal of allegedly derogatory and inflammatory online content concerning Shirdi Sai Baba. The Court issued notice on the fresh application filed by the Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust and asked the Union Government to respond. The Trust has alleged that several YouTube videos and articles contain deeply offensive descriptions of Sai Baba and have the potential to hurt religious sentiments and promote communal disharmony. Earlier complaints had been considered by the Grievance Appellate Committee, which reportedly directed removal of the concerned videos and articles on August 13. However, the Trust informed the Court that seven videos and certain articles remained accessible and that YouTube had not fully complied with the takedown direction. The Court has now directed that any further fresh complaint should be considered by the appropriate authority and has listed the matter for September 7, 2026. The case will therefore continue to examine not only the allegations concerning the disputed content but also the effectiveness of the grievance redressal and takedown mechanisms applicable to online platforms.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.