Bombay High Court Orders X Corp To Take Down Alleged Defamatory Video Against Serum Institute, Adar Poonawalla

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed X Corp (formerly Twitter) to take down a fresh video uploaded by YouTuber Yohan Tengra in a case brought by Serum Institute of India and its CEO Adar Poonawalla.

The court found that the video repeated content it had already held objectionable and that Tengra had said he would not comply with its earlier order

Justice Gauri Godse, in an order pronounced on September 29, also issued show cause notices to Tengra, his channel Anarchy for Freedom India, Ambar Koiri and TV10-L.I.V.E., asking why action under for contempt should not be initiated for defying the court's June 5, 2023 order. The notices are returnable on October 27.

Serum Institute and Poonawalla had filed the suit over videos alleged to contain defamatory statements against them and are seeking Rs. 100 crore in compensation and damages.

On June 5, 2023, the high court had restrained the persons responsible for the videos from publishing or circulating the objectionable material, or similar content, through any medium. It also directed them to remove the videos and issue an unconditional apology.

According to Serum Institute, Tengra uploaded another video on the same night, stating that he would not comply with the order because he considered it illegal and non-binding.

The court recorded that he also repeated the allegation that Poonawalla was a “mass murderer”.

Serum Institute sent a takedown notice to Google LLC and X Corp on June 9, 2023. Google removed the objectionable content, while X Corp replied on June 10 that it would not comply because the order had not been issued against it.

X Corp argued that it was only a platform and not the originator of the content. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, it contended that an intermediary can be required to remove content on receiving actual knowledge through a court order identifying the material to be removed. It also argued that Serum Institute should pursue Tengra for alleged disobedience instead of seeking relief against the platform.

The high court held that directions to an intermediary to remove defamatory or objectionable material must concern identifiable content. An intermediary cannot assume the role of an adjudicator or censor or be directed to control the activities of the person who originated the content.

The court, however, distinguished the fresh video. It found that Tengra had repeated the objectionable content and stated that he would not comply with the earlier order. It therefore directed X Corp to remove, delete, or disable access to that specific video under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the CPC.

The court declined wider requests seeking directions to platforms to control future activity and refused, at this stage, to order suspension or deletion of the accounts involved, holding that such relief would amount to granting the final relief sought in the suit.

It also held that the June 5, 2023, injunction continues to operate because it had not been recalled or set aside. Serum Institute can therefore adopt the procedure available under Sections 36 and 51 of the CPC to enforce it.

The court found that Tengra had disobeyed its earlier injunction and initiated action against him for the breach

The interim application was partly allowed, with the takedown direction and show cause notices listed for October 27.