Access a copy of the Calcutta HC order here: [pdf]
In a Rs. 50 Crore defamation case against Hotmail founder Sabeer Bhatia, the Calcutta High Court on Monday ordered YouTube, X and Instagram to disable access to copies of a video essay on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the business conglomerate Gautham Adani’s Adani Group. Judge Aryak Dutt J also barred the video’s creator, Sabeer Bhatia, from re-sharing the video or any clip related to the now-blocked video.
This is an ad-interim injunction, a temporary order passed before the court has made the final decision. Calcutta HC listed this case again after around three months, on January 31, 2027.
Surprisingly, the court also sought user information, including IP logs, of the anonymous accounts from the intermediaries in a “sealed cover” within two weeks after the intermediaries receives the order.
Some background: For context, Adani Enterprises has sued Bhatia, the operators of YouTube, X and Instagram, and two unidentified persons for damages for defamation for the 36 minute video essay titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India | The Friendship Files.”
- Just after the days of its release, YouTube has geo-blocked the video essay in India.
- After YouTube blocked the video, Bhatia shared copies on Google Drive and iCloud.
- Later, Mumbai police asked the X to take down at least 27 posts related to the video essay.
- Bhatia has voluntarily taken down some of the posts but continued to speak about the censorship regarding the video essay.
After asking the public to watch the video essay and publicly sharing a copy of it, Maharashtra politician Raj Thackeray has said that he had deleted the post about the video documentary.
Thackeray said that he had deleted the post after receiving a “request conveyed through the Mumbai Police Commissioner.”
However, MediaNama couldn’t independently verify if Mumbai Police had sent an official legal notice to delete the video.
He claimed that the video already got “over 4.8 million views on Twitter alone,” excluding the uncounted views from Facebook and others.
Freeze the revenue on the URLs and submit user info of anonymous accounts in ‘sealed cover’: The order also asked the intermediaries to preserve the user information, including IP logs at the time of upload and access logs, of the unidentified anonymous accounts that posted the content related to the video essay and submit the same in a “sealed cover.”
Sealed covers is a mechanism followed in Indian courts where the ‘sensitive and confidential’ information is given only to Indian judges and will not be part of the public record, and the opposing parties also won’t have access to the submission done via sealed cover. You can read more about this on Supreme Court Observer.
This practice goes against the open court principles, argues Alok Prasanna Kumar, co-founder of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, as quoted in The Print.
“Apart from their inexplicable nature, such orders fundamentally go against the cardinal principle of an open court. They violate the principles of natural justice as well, preventing parties from having a full appreciation of the facts of the case,” Alok Prasanna Kumar told the Print.
“The respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 [YouTube, X and Instagram] shall preserve the subscriber information, registration details, IP logs at the time of upload and access logs relating to the accounts and URLs listed in Schedule A and those furnished under subparagraph (d). They shall disclose the basic subscriber information of the accounts whose holders are not identifiable from Schedule A, in a sealed cover, by an affidavit filed within two weeks of communication of this order.
The respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall not run or serve advertisements on, or share revenue in respect of, the said URLs or the impugned video containing the said defamatory statements. They shall preserve the records of any advertisement revenue generated from them until further orders.” – Calcutta High Court
Calcutta HC judgement is against free speech, says the creator:
“I’m shocked by Justice Aryak’s judgment. I’m no lawyer, but I believe it strikes at the very foundation of democracy-the fundamental right to free speech. A judgment that silences citizens for speaking their minds threaten the constitutional freedoms of every Indian.” – Sabeer Bhatia
Calcutta HC observations about the Adani-Modi video essay:
- Dramatized narrative: “The impugned video is not a news report or an account of proceedings. It is a dramatized narrative, whose title expressly imputes theft, and whose narration and visuals are represented as factual.”
- Assertions without evidence to back them as facts: “The imputations that the petitioner’s group is complicit in, or has been shielded from accountability for, narcotics smuggling linked to terror funding, and that it procured police violence and false prosecution against a farmer, are assertions of fact and not expressions of opinion. Nothing placed before me shows any finding by any authority to that effect.”
Also read:
- YouTube blocks Modi-Adani video essay after government complaint
- Mumbai Police asks X to remove 24 Modi-Adani video posts
- X says Gujarat Police repeatedly used Section 79(3)(b) to remove Adani-related posts
The post Calcutta HC seeks IP logs in ‘sealed cover’, asks platforms to block copies of Adani-Modi video appeared first on MEDIANAMA.