Video uploaded by Dhruv Rathee withheld in India, global blocking pending: YouTube tells Delhi High Court

Published 11 August 2026 · local

Google on Tuesday (August 11, 2026) informed the Delhi High Court that it has withheld a YouTube video uploaded by social media influencer Dhruv Rathee

Google on Tuesday (August 11, 2026) informed the Delhi High Court that it has withheld a YouTube video uploaded by social media influencer Dhruv Rathee in India, following allegations that the content was defamatory and offended religious sentiments. The submission was made before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in a petition filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who has sought removal of the allegedly objectionable video. According to Ms. Sachdeva, the influencer uploaded the video on March 21 and it subsequently garnered millions of views on YouTube. She alleged that the video contained “false, misleading and provocative statements” concerning Lord Shri Ram, Lord Krishna and Goddess Sita.

Google, which owns YouTube, told the court that the video had been withheld in India pursuant to an order of the Centre’s Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC). Its counsel clarified that the restriction was limited to India, with the question of blocking the video globally pending before a Division Bench of the High Court. Sachdeva, however, submitted that the GAC had on July 15 directed Google to take down the video within 24 hours, but the platform had only withheld it in India, which, according to her, amounted to “partial compliance” with the order.

With Division Bench Justice Sharma noted that the issue of a global injunction was already pending before the Division Bench. “Whatever they could do, they have already done,” the court observed while posting the matter for hearing on September 3. The proceedings stem from Ms. Sachdeva’s earlier plea seeking removal of the allegedly objectionable video. Sachdeva said she initially lodged a complaint with the Cyber Crime Cell on March 22, 2026, followed by a grievance before YouTube’s Resident Grievance Officer on March 23. After Youtube declined to remove the content, stating that they are unable to identify any violations of their community guidelines, the advocate approached the GAC on March 27.

The petition alleges that despite the Information Technology Rules requiring appeals to be resolved expeditiously, preferably within 30 days, the appeal remained undecided for more than two and a half months. On July 3, the High Court had directed the GAC to decide her grievance within 15 days, following which she moved an application alleging non-compliance with the direction.