The Delhi High Court issued a Patanjali Video Takedown Order, directing Google and Meta to remove videos that allegedly disparaged Patanjali and its products. Justice Jyoti Singh also restrained an identified uploader from publishing the same content again. The Court acted after Patanjali claimed the videos falsely alleged that its products caused cancer and described them as “zeher.”
Patanjali Challenges Nineteen Videos
Patanjali filed a commercial suit against named and unknown defendants, unidentified social media accounts, and the concerned intermediaries. The company identified nineteen videos on YouTube and Instagram. Several videos carried identical content across both platforms. Patanjali argued that the videos crossed the line from fair criticism to unlawful disparagement. It claimed the allegations could seriously damage its reputation and business.
Court Seeks Platform-Wise Identification
During the hearing, the Court asked the parties to separate the disputed URLs based on the platform hosting them. Patanjali identified which URLs belonged to Google and which belonged to Meta. This approach allowed each intermediary to receive clear and specific directions for compliance. After reviewing the details, Justice Singh ordered both platforms to remove the identified content.
Google and Meta Must Act Within 36 Hours
The Court directed Google and Meta to take down the remaining videos within 36 hours. It also issued an injunction against the identified uploader, preventing any further publication of the disputed videos on the same or any other platform. The matter will now proceed before the Joint Registrar on September 1 for procedural steps, while the Court will hear the interim application again on December 9.
Significance of the Ruling
The Patanjali Video Takedown Order highlights the Delhi High Court’s readiness to grant swift relief in online disparagement cases involving serious allegations. It also shows the Court’s practical approach by requiring platform-specific identification before issuing removal directions. The ruling reinforces that courts may intervene quickly to limit potential reputational harm while the main dispute continues through regular legal proceedings.
