Take a call within 15 days on removal of Dhruv Rathee video: Delhi High Court to govt

3 min readNew DelhiJul 3, 2026 08:55 PM IST

The petition was moved by advocate Amita Sachdeva who objected to a video by Rathee uploaded on his official YouTube channel on March 21.

(Source: Express Archives)

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Centre to expeditiously decide on removal of an alleged “derogatory, inflammatory, and communally sensitive video” by influencer Dhruv Rathee within 15 days even as the government urged that social media intermediaries such as Google are empowered to block content minus any government order.

The government also emphasised that Google needs to “be cautious in future not to permit such kind of fissiparous posts, which denigrate and hurt the sentiments of the majority community in this country.”

The petition was moved by advocate Amita Sachdeva who objected to a video by Rathee uploaded on his official YouTube channel on March 21.

Seeking removal of the video, Sachdeva submitted that Rathee is heard deliberately making “highly offensive, false, and malicious statements insulting the divine character of” deities and other revered Hindu icons by claiming that they consumed non-vegetarian food and alcohol.

Sachdeva also lodged a complaint with the Cyber Crime Cell, New Delhi, in this regard. Additionally, she invoked statutory provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and also has an appeal pending before the government’s Grievance Appellate Committee, seeking removal of the video.

On Friday, she pointed to the court that while the appellate committee is expected to decide appeals within a month, it has been nearly three months and no decision has been taken by the body. Sachdeva sought that the appellate committee can also be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.

Representing the government, ASG Chetan Sharma, however, moved the ball in the intermediary’s court, telling Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, “First of all, the kind of disparagement made against deities is not tolerable, absolutely. Now mere pendency of the appeal does not deter the intermediary from exercising its due diligence, which is to block and take down all such content…Rule 10 of intermediary blocking rules (Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009) makes a reference to court order. Now either Google says it will do it now…or the court may pass the judgement.”

Story continues below this ad

Also relying on the recent court order in the case of Telegram platform being blocked temporarily in exercise of powers under IT Act section 69A, which was upheld by Delhi HC, ASG Sharma said, “The challenge (in the Telegram case) was you can take down information, you cannot block. The court (in the Telegram case) has said, ‘no’, under IT Act 69A you can block the information if it is harmful to public interest and security.”

“Either intermediary says that they will take it down and be cautious in future not to permit such kind of fissiparous posts, which denigrate and hurt the sentiments of the majority community in this country, or the court, by exercising its powers…makes an order that it be taken down forthwith,” ASG Sharma added.

Justice Sharma directed the appellate committee to decide Sachdeva’s pending appeal within 15 days of the receipt of the court’s order and disposed of the petition.

Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court

Professional Profile

Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.

Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).

Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.

She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.

With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram

Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)

Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:

High-Profile Case Coverage

She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.

Signature Style

Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.

X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More