The Kerala High Court recently intervened in a case involving a controversial video circulating on social media, directing Meta Platforms to temporarily block access to the content. The video allegedly contains offensive and derogatory remarks about deities revered at the Sabarimala temple, which has sparked significant concern among devotees.
Interim Order by Justice G Girish
This decision was made by Justice G Girish in response to a petition filed by Rahul K Easwar, a right-wing activist and public commentator. Easwar’s plea sought the removal of the video and urged action against Sunny M Kapikad, a Dalit activist accused of making the contentious comments.
Upon reviewing the video, the court identified that the content could potentially offend religious sentiments. Justice Girish remarked, “The allegation by the petitioner regarding the scandalous and indecent speech about the Sabarimala deities appears to be substantiated. Continuing the availability of this video on social media platforms would certainly harm the religious beliefs of the worshippers.”
Specific URL Blocking Ordered
In light of these observations, the court issued an interim order instructing Meta Platforms to block and disable public access to the video at the specified URL. It is important to note that this directive is limited to that particular URL, ensuring that the measure is both targeted and precise.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for October 6, where further developments in the case will be discussed.
More Read
Further Actions and Verification
In his petition, Easwar also sought directives for state authorities to take down the objectionable video. He alleges that Kapikad’s remarks specifically targeted Sabarimala deities Lord Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma. Easwar’s legal representatives, advocates PT Sheejish and Ayonna George, have been actively involved in presenting the case.
During the hearing, Easwar’s counsel informed the court that they would investigate whether the video is accessible through other URLs, ensuring comprehensive compliance with the court’s order.
As this matter continues to unfold, it highlights the ongoing tensions between freedom of speech and religious sensitivities, particularly in the context of digital platforms where content can quickly reach wide audiences.
