'We Take It With A Pinch Of Salt': MP High Court On Online Comments On Judiciary In PIL Over Misuse Of Live-Streamed Proceedings

While hearing a PIL claiming misuse of live-streamed court proceedings via reels and memes, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (September 25) orally remarked that it took social media comments about the judiciary with a "with a pinch of salt". 

During the hearing the petitioner advocate Arihant Tiwari contended that such videos and memes derived from live-streamed court proceedings enabled the public to post comments criticizing the judiciary. He sought a writ of mandamus to prevent future uploads.

However, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf orally said, "There cannot be a mandamus issued because their (social media platforms) automated system will not accept such a change". 

The bench further remarked, "It is not possible to control these comments which come, and we all take them with a pinch of salt. We have learnt to live with them. You pass a judgment, the moment it goes on social media, there will be comments by people who have limited or no knowledge of law, and they will start giving 'Gyaan' to everybody. Some things we have to live with. We cannot do anything about (it)".

Meanwhile Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Meta (including Instagram, respondent no 5), claimed that the platform could not act as a judge and take down content itself. The platform could only take such measures in compliance with an order passed by either the Court or a competent government authority. 

He argued, 'I cannot be a judge of what is being posted. The law requires that either a court makes an order or the government makes an order asking me to take down specific uploaded stuff, which is identified by what is called a URL- Uniform Resource Locator. All these have URLs. If we don't take any sides, we are not proposing any request...if the court finds that a particular video or any other post is offensive or bad, it will direct us to take it down, and we take it down in usually 48 hours or so...If the petitioner points out the URLs and the court makes an order, we will take down in both the petitions". 

Recording the submission, the bench noted, 

"Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for Meta Platform Inc, submits that Meta Platform Inc would not take any side with any entity and is willing to take down any offensive video pointed out ether by the court or information received from a competent authority, provided the URL of the video is provided and said offensive video if so directed shall be taken down within maximum period of 48 hours. The statement is taken on record". 

The court further directed the petitioner to identify the specific URLs of the alleged offensive content so that it could be forwarded to Meta and YouTube for removal.

Advocate Tiwari argued that he had already mailed Meta's Grievance Officer, but that no action was taken. 

But the court orally said, "...Insofar as these are concerned, whichever are the offensive, identify the URLs. All you need to do is do a right click, copy URLs, paste it on a chart, and give it to us, we will send it to Meta and YouTube and they will delete them". 

Rohatgi thereafter informed that the Grievance Officer of Meta had no role in the matter and therefore should be deleted from the memo of parties, which was allowed by the court. 

Tiwari also argued that despite the established guidelines prohibiting the publication of videos derived from live-streamed court proceedings, people continued to upload such content, and he, therefore, sought action against the owners of the offending channels. 

To this the bench orally said, "You see, for that, future directions are issued. Insofar as Meta and YouTube are concerned, these are automatic platforms...they do not monitor anything. They provide a system of uploading data, and there is a disclaimer that they are not responsible for the content, but they are willing to cooperate. The moment you point out that this is an offensive URL, they will take it down. That's the maximum they can do. Of course, these UTV Court 24, for example, if you are saying that this person is putting up offensive videos, you may implead him as a party. We will take action".

The court further remarked, "YouTube and Meta have no control. It is an automatic system; there may be people outside the jurisdiction of this State or the Country uploading videos, because this is a facility provided. They cannot block anybody's channels". 

Tiwari then argued that the platforms had previously blocked the channels of people and claimed that accounts of some YouTubers had been suspended. 

The court then remarked, "Show that offending video, if there are repeated offensive videos being put by some channels, then we can request them to try blocking their accounts. But then somebody can open a new account, you still can't prevent it. It is an automated system". 

Tiwari also stated that the court had earlier directed him to implead the owners of the offending channels, but that he was unable to serve notice as he only had their email ID. The court, thereafter, directed him to provide those email IDs, observing that notices could be served to the said owners through email. 

Further, Advocate Tiwari raised an issue of exclusive copyright of the High Court on these videos. He contended that the entire revenue being generated from these videos belonged to the High Court and thus, the recovery of the same should be made from the owners of private channels.

The court suggested that he can implead the channels. During the hearing, the court also allowed the prayer of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to be impleaded as an intervenor. 

Earlier, through an order of September 12, the court had directed its Registry to temporarily suspend the live streaming of all Benches' hearing criminal matters until the next date of hearing, after the petitioner contended that, despite the guidelines in the case of Vijay Bajaj v Union of India, short videos, clippings and other recordings of criminal proceedings were being made and uploaded on platforms such as YouTube in violation of the rules. The order was to be implemented from September 15 (Monday).

The case is now expected to be heard on October 29. 

Case Title: Arihant Tiwari v Union of India (WP No. 36619 of 2025)

For Petitioner: Advocate Arihant Tiwari

For Meta: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi

For Union: Deputy Solicitor General S.M. Guru

For High Court: Advocate Sandeep Shukla