In its submissions to the Delhi High Court, Google told the Delhi High Court that it blocked YouTuber Dhruv Rathee’s video in India in compliance with an order of the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), according to Bar & Bench’s live updates from the court proceedings. View the full thread here. 

What is the blocked video: “Can Hindus Eat BEEF? | Kerala Story 2 EXPOSED | Dhruv Rathee”  —  [ URL ] (Accessible via VPN) 

Source: Dhruv Rathee’s Youtube Channel —  [ URL ] (Accessible via VPN) 

When the geo-blocked video’s URL is accessed without a VPN, it displays this notice: “Video unavailable. This content is not available on this country domain due to a legal complaint from the government.”

Background to the case: On July 3, 2026, Bar and Bench reported that the Delhi High Court ordered GAC to decide within 15 days on removing the concerned Dhruv Rathee video on YouTube. Then, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the GAC’s order should be considered as the “imitation to this court” and that “any disregard to this [GAC] order will be taken note of seriously.”

Delhi HC said this after advocate Amita Sachdeva filed a petition against Rathee’s video. Sachdeva claimed that in the video Rathee falsely stated that Ram, Seetha and Krishna consumed meat and alcohol. She said that the video is “highly derogatory, inflammatory and communally sensitive.”

What is a Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC)? It is a central government-appointed online-only appellate body established by MeitY under Rule 3A of the IT Rules to hear appeals against decisions of intermediaries’ Grievance Officers, including cases where grievances are not resolved within prescribed timelines.

If platforms fail to comply with the GAC orders, intermediaries could lose their safe harbor protections and be liable for penalties. 

A few more points about the GAC: 

  • Anyone can raise a complaint with GAC if:
    • General complaints: If the grievance is not resolved within the time specified in Rule 3(2)(a)(i), which deals with the general complaints and obligates the intermediaries to respond within 7 days. If the concern is regarding a specific content removal request, then the intermediary should respond within 36 hours.
    • Intimate images or impersonation: If the grievance is not resolved under Rule 3(2)(b) within 2 hours when the complaint concerns specified intimate imagery or impersonation. 
  • The GAC is expected to resolve appeals within 30 calendar days. 
  • GAC can seek assistance from qualified experts if needed.
  • The GAC does not handle grievances concerning publishers of news and current affairs covered under Part 3 of the IT Rules.

“If the GAC’s role was limited to ensuring that platforms are enforcing their own ToS’ fairly, by examining whether content removals are in accordance with the relevant platform’s ToS (rather than determining whether the content is legal or illegal), the GAC may provide users with recourse against platforms that otherwise exercise extraordinary powers over online speech. Nonetheless, the GAC would still have to possess sufficient safeguards to ensure independence, impartiality, and fair procedures. In its current iteration, it risks being a tool for the State to compel platforms to host speech they may have otherwise taken down.” — Vasudev Devadasan (July 2022)

Also Read: