Delhi HC directs Facebook and intermediaries to take down purported videos of Uttarakhand MLA Umesh Kumar and woman

The HC was informed by the senior counsel appearing for the woman that the Uttarakhand Police received a pen drive with the purported video concerning Kumar (defendant no 8) and the plaintiff, and registered an FIR last month under Section 66D of the Information and Technology Act.

The senior counsel argued that consequently, the video is being disseminated at a rampant pace, with the number of viewers increasing with each passing day. The senior counsel alleged that in addition to the purported video, Champion posted five other videos of the woman “from different angles in the comments to the original post”.

The senior counsel further argued that while these videos are “fake/deep fakes”, which have been created to damage and malign the image of the woman, Champion “harbours political vendetta against” Kumar, and the woman is being unnecessarily roped in their tussle.

Justice Narula said while the issue of defamation of the woman remains to be adjudicated, the immediate concern of the court is her violation of privacy. The HC said that the woman had made out a “prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte and interim relief and the balance of convenience” was also in the woman’s favour.

While the woman asserted that all the video links mentioned in her lawsuit be taken down, Justice Narula, however, said that after examining all these videos, the court does not deem it appropriate to restrain access to one of the videos as it “displays a snippet from the press conference, but does not exhibit the videos in question”.

However, the HC directed the intermediaries, including Facebook, to remove five videos during the pendency of the proceedings, as mentioned in the order, which are available for viewing on their respective platforms.

Restraining the publishing of the video, Justice Narula directed, “Defendants Nos 6 to 8 and all persons acting on their behalf are restrained from publishing, communicating, issuing, or causing to be published, communicated, or issued any video/material to the public which is similar or identical to the videos that have been injuncted through this order”.

The HC said in case the videos in question resurface on the intermediaries’ platform the woman will be at liberty to supply the URLs concerned to the said defendant intermediary, “who shall take appropriate action to block/ takedown the same, in accordance with law”.

In case the intermediaries come to the conclusion that the content is not identical to the videos which have been injuncted, they shall inform the woman within a week from the date of receiving her request. After that, the woman will be free to approach the HC for appropriate directions, the court said.

The woman had also claimed due to the “defamatory” video she is being subjected to “undue public ridicule” which has severely harmed her reputation and image. She had also sought that since the criminal investigation is also underway the circulation of the video be prohibited.

She also argued that the “non-consensual dissemination of the videos also contravenes the provisions of the Information Technology Act” and violates her privacy and directions must be issued to intermediaries to prohibit transmission of the videos on their fora.