Dhruv Rathee’s disputed YouTube video on Hindu scriptures has been blocked in India following an order linked to the Centre’s Grievance Appellate Committee, Google told the Delhi High Court. The video remains accessible outside India, prompting a plea seeking its removal worldwide. The controversy centres on Rathee’s March 21 video, which discussed dietary references involving Hindu deities and drew allegations of derogatory and inflammatory content. The court proceedings are continuing, while Google has yet to decide whether the video should be removed globally.
Dhruv Rathee’s Controversial Hindu Deities Video Blocked in India, Global Ban Bid Follows
Google has informed the Delhi High Court that it blocked a YouTube video by Dhruv Rathee on Hindu scriptures in India, following an order from the Union government, and is yet to decide whether to take it down globally.
Delhi High Court again heard the Dhruv Rathee video case after Google informed the court that the controversial YouTube video has been withheld in India. Google’s counsel told Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Tuesday that the restriction was imposed based on an order passed by the Centre’s Grievance Appellate Committee on the disputed video.
The video remains accessible outside India. Advocate Amita Sachdeva has sought its removal worldwide, saying if people can still access it through technical means, the ban is not effective. Sachdeva’s petition is in relation to a video uploaded by Dhruv Rathee on YouTube on March 21 captioned “Can Hindus Eat BEEF? Kerala Story 2 Exposed”.
In the video, Rathee talked about dietary references in Hindu scriptures and said that texts mention deities including Ram and Krishna eating meat and drinking alcohol. Court-related reports said Sachdeva had alleged that the video was derogatory, inflammatory, and communally sensitive, which led to legal objections to the claims.
Amita Sachdeva’s Petition and Criminal Complaint
The proceedings were filed by lawyer Amita Sachdeva, who also filed a criminal complaint against Rathee before a magistrate alleging distortion of Hindu scriptures. Sachdeva said the video was disrespectful of the sanctity of Sanatana Dharma, a term used by some people as a synonym for Hinduism.
The dispute then went to the government’s Grievance Appellate Committee, which hears appeals concerning complaints against social-media intermediaries over online content. On July 3, the Delhi High Court told the Centre's Grievance Appellate Committee to decide Sachdeva's pending appeal on the video within 15 days.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed the direction after Sachdeva submitted that the appeal was pending for around three months against the statutory timeline.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, argued during that hearing that platforms like Google could exercise due diligence in respect of allegedly objectionable content.
The government also invoked provisions under the Information Technology framework, including Section 69A, which deals with the blocking of information deemed harmful to public interest and security.
Also Read: Mangal Prabhat Lodha Pushes Drugs-Free Mumbai Drive at Ganeshotsav.
Google’s Position Before the Delhi High Court
The latest hearing clarified that Google had followed the direction of the government committee to impose an India-specific restriction and not to remove the video globally. The counsel for Google said, “The video is still available outside India and is not taken down worldwide, which is a matter still pending before the Delhi High Court.
Users in India could still access the video through a virtual private network, commonly known as a VPN, Sachdeva told the court. That was the basis on which she sought a global injunction against the video, arguing that an India-only ban did not fully stop access to the disputed material.
The court did not order an immediate global removal and kicked the issue into September, leaving the wider question hanging before the judiciary.
There are competing considerations in the proceedings about religious sensitivities, intermediary obligations, online expression and the geographical reach of government-directed content restrictions.
What Happens Next in Dhruv Rathee Case
The September hearing should be the next major update on Sachdeva’s application for global removal and the ongoing availability of Rathee’s video.
The case also underscores how Indian authorities and digital platforms have handled online content that purportedly offends religious sentiments in the midst of wider worries about free speech.
The key difference for Sprouts News is in the claims made by the petitioner, the instructions given by government officials, and the findings ultimately decided through judicial proceedings.
The Delhi High Court’s eventual decision may have implications for the interaction of India-specific content blocking orders with requests for global restrictions on digital material.
The request for global removal is yet to be acted upon, but until the court rules otherwise, Google is continuing to enforce the existing India-specific restriction it reported for the video.
