📣 Send us your press release
Site updates every 15 minutes
Technology

Bombay HC Orders X to Remove Video, Rules Platforms Cannot Be Censors

The Bombay High Court has ordered X Corp to remove a video posted by YouTuber Yohan Tengra that repeats defamatory claims against Serum Institute of India and its CEO, Adar Poonawalla. The court clarified that platforms cannot be compelled to act as censors.

1 October 2026

The Bombay High Court has ordered X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, to remove a specific video posted by YouTuber Yohan Tengra that allegedly repeats defamatory claims against the Serum Institute of India and its Chief Executive Officer, Adar Poonawalla. Justice Gauri Godse stated that courts can direct platforms to remove only identifiable content that has been examined and cannot make platforms adjudicators of defamation or monitors of future user posts.

The order was issued on September 29 as part of a Rs 100 crore defamation suit filed in 2022. Serum Institute and Poonawalla had sued Tengra, his YouTube channel "Anarchy for Freedom India," Ambar Koiri, and TV10 L.I.V.E. Previously, in June 2023, the court had found Tengra's claims, which linked the Covishield vaccine to deaths, to be prima facie defamatory and had ordered the content's removal.

X had initially refused to comply with a similar order in June 2023, arguing that the court had not issued an order directly against them. The company contended that it merely hosts content and did not create it, suggesting Serum Institute should pursue action directly against Tengra for disobeying the prior ruling.

The latest video was uploaded by Tengra on the same night the previous court order was issued, with him stating he would not comply as he considered the order illegal. The court found this video repeated the previously objectionable content and was in blatant defiance of its directive. Consequently, the court ordered X to remove, delete, or disable access to that specific video.

The court also issued show-cause notices to Tengra and his associates regarding contempt of court for disobeying the June injunction. This ruling sets limits on what courts can demand from platforms in defamation cases, requiring removal of specifically identified content while leaving users who repeatedly defy orders to be dealt with separately.

Original source: medianama.com