Kerala High Court petition seeks Meta
A petitioner has asked the Kerala High Court to order Meta to remove a video containing alleged vulgar remarks about Sabarimala deities, bypassing India's
Activist Rahul K. Easwar has petitioned the Kerala High Court to direct Meta Platforms to remove, block, and restrict access to a video. Easwar alleges the video contains vulgar and sexually explicit remarks about the Sabarimala deities Lord Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma, and he seeks a criminal case against writer and activist Sunny M. Kapikad, whom he names as responsible for the remarks.
The case is numbered WP(Crl.) 1326/2026 and is before Justice G. Girish. The respondents include Meta Platforms, state authorities, a cybercrime police station, and Kapikad. On August 31, 2026, the court directed the Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions from state and cybercrime police officials. During a subsequent hearing on September 7, the court allowed corrections to the application and noted that steps to issue formal notices had not yet been taken. The court permitted notice to Meta to be served via email or through its standing counsel. The matter is posted for September 10 to consider the plea and any request for interim relief. No takedown order has been issued. Advocates P.T. Sheejish and Ayonna George are representing the petitioner.
Bypassing the statutory framework
The petition seeks a judicial takedown order, circumventing India's multi-tiered statutory grievance system for online content. This system, built over four years, includes a platform's grievance officer, a Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), and the government's Sahyog portal for law-enforcement notices. A takedown ordered directly by a writ court leaves no statutory record within that framework and offers no built-in appeal mechanism. It also may not produce published reasoning that would allow the decision to be publicly assessed.
The three established routes
India's Information Technology Rules provide specific channels for content complaints. The rules mandate timelines and compliance obligations for intermediaries like Meta.
| Grievance Route | Responsible Entity | Key Timeline / Provision |
|---|---|---|
| First Complaint | Platform's Grievance Officer | Acknowledge within 24 hours, resolve within 15 days (Rule 3(2)(a)(i)) |
| First Appeal | Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) | "Endeavour" to resolve appeal within 30 days (Rule 3A(4)) |
| Law Enforcement Notice | Authorized Government Agency | Issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 via Sahyog portal |
A writ petition to a High Court remains a constitutional remedy available to any citizen. However, as MediaNama notes, content removed via a court order does not appear in a platform's transparency reports or compliance data related to the statutory system.
Awaiting the court's decision
The characterization of the video is solely the petitioner's allegation; there has been no judicial finding on its content. Whether the Kerala High Court will entertain the prayer for a takedown outside the IT Rules framework is pending. The court is scheduled to consider the plea and any request for interim relief on September 10. MediaNama reports it has sent questions to Meta and counsel for both sides, asking if Meta will contest the maintainability of the petition, whether it has received any prior grievance about the content, and which statutory provisions the petition relies on for the sought criminal complaint.
