Allahabad HC sends notice to Facebook, Instagram, others on objectionable video of seer

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has issued notices to Facebook, Instagram, Google and YouTube, taking cognisance of an alleged objectionable video circulating on a YouTube channel and other social media platforms against Swami Ram Bhadracharya Ji Maharaj, the vice chancellor of Jagatguru Swami Ram Bhadracharya Divyang University in Chitrakoot.

The court has directed that a representation be submitted to the Grievance Redressal Officers of these social media platforms within a week regarding the video being shown against Swami, and thereafter action be taken to remove the said objectionable video immediately.

Hearing the plea on Wednesday, the court also ordered the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to seek clarification from Shashank Shekhar, the editor of channel ‘Bedhadak Khabar’ on Facebook and Instagram, and to take appropriate action against him.

The court will next hear the case on October 8, according to the order made available on Friday.

A bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh passed the order on the writ petition filed by Sharad Chandra Srivastava and others.

The petition demands that the Central and state governments should enact mechanism to regulate various social media platforms and strictly enforce them.

It says Shashank Shekhar runs a channel called ‘Bedhadak Khabar’ on Facebook and Instagram. He has posted derogatory video against Swami Ram Bhadracharya on his YouTube channel as well as other social media platforms.

Despite repeated requests, neither has he removed the video nor have the relevant social media platforms taken any action. This video is being circulated under the title ‘Ram Bhadracharya par khulasa - 16 saal pahle kya hua tha’.

The petition also states that Swamiji has been visually impaired since childhood, yet videos containing derogatory content regarding his disability are being circulated. A ban on the video is also sought.

After hearing the matter at length, the court said that prima facie, there is a case for action by the state commissioner working for the disabled against the said content.