New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has asked Google and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to respond in a case that could determine whether a creator can challenge a YouTube channel termination through a writ petition. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice on September 17 and listed the matter for December 8.
The petitioner is Shaban Alam, a Kanpur Dehat-based creator who ran the channel ‘Indian Reality Show’ from 2017. The channel entered the YouTube Partner Program in December 2021 and had more than 267,000 subscribers when Google terminated it on July 1. Alam says it had never received a Community Guidelines strike in nine years, and the Rs 30,000–50,000 monthly income supported a family of eight. The Internet Freedom Foundation is providing pro bono legal support.
What the petition says happened
According to the petition, Alam followed YouTube’s own workflow for Content ID claims: he tested uploads in unlisted mode, trimmed claimed segments with YouTube’s editor, deleted test uploads, and published only corrected versions. Yet Google’s July 1 email said the channel was removed for “severe or repeated violations of our spam, deceptive practices and scams policy” without identifying any video, date, title, or upload.
- Google told Alam on July 2 that the decision was final and a termination “isn’t always preceded by three strikes”.
- On July 5, support said a channel can still be terminated without a warning or strike.
- On July 6, support said it could not provide specifics about the review team’s decision.
Alam argues this left him unable to produce his own violations record because Google removed his access to YouTube Studio when it terminated the channel.
A GAC order that ‘decides’ very little
The Grievance Appellate Committee disposed of Alam’s appeal on July 15, saying it found “no reason to interfere” with Google’s decision. The petition challenges that order because the committee’s only stated reason repeats, word for word, examples from YouTube’s public spam policy page. The order offers three possible explanations joined by “or” and never says which applies to Alam, despite the fact that he says he has only ever run one channel.
It also does not clearly say whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed, names no video or date, and issues no direction under Rule 3A(7) of the IT Rules, 2021, the petition states. Alam separately asks the court to hold that the termination contravened Rule 4(8), which requires prior notice, an opportunity to dispute, and oversight by a Resident Grievance Officer when a significant social media intermediary acts on its own to remove access.
Why the court’s answer matters
Google’s counsel argued that the relationship is a private contract and the platform has a right to terminate a channel. That echoes a 2024 Delhi High Court ruling that users cannot file writ petitions against private platforms like X. Alam’s petition counters that the main challenge runs against the GAC as a statutory authority, not just Google.
For media planners and entertainment businesses, the case is a signal test of whether the GAC system functions as the “efficacious statutory remedy” courts have assumed it to be. If a committee can uphold a takedown by pasting policy language and issuing no operative direction, appeals become a formality rather than a check on platform power. The December hearing may set the standard for how much reasoning a GAC order must contain.
Source: MEDIANAMA
