- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:686 WP No. 109868 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.109868 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: D. SRIDHAR S/O D. KOTESHWARA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUNIRABAD DAM, CHALLAYYA CAMP, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DIST: KOPPAL. 3. YOUTUBE, LLC, 901 CHERRY AVE, SAN BRUNO, CA 94066, USA, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 4. NEWS 9, O/AT: NO.13, 2ND FLOOR, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU-560 025 BY ITS PROPRIETOR. 5. GOOGLE, 901 CHERRY AVE, SAN BRUNO, CA 94066, USA, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SMT. AKSHATA BENEGAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R5; SRI. SYED R.H., & G.R. JOSHI, ADVOCATES FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT DATED 02.11.2016, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE PERSONS MENTIONED THEREIN & ETC., Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:686 WP No. 109868 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner has filed this petition for direction to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police [the second respondent] to consider his complaint and to take appropriate action to ensure that the other respondents remove the offensive content from the respective platforms. This in effect is the petitioner’s request though he has detailed separately the direction that he contends will have to be issued to the private respondents. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the fourth respondent without any basis has telecast content with allegations that a third person has put an end to his life because of his daughter, and that he is aggrieved by the telecast of this false information because his daughter’s marriage, which was on cards as on the date of the telecast, is cancelled because of this false decimation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:686 WP No. 109868 of 2016 3. Mr. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterates these grounds but he is unable to say about the turn of events in all these years with the petition pending consideration. In fact the learned counsel states that he has not received any instructions from the petitioner. Ms. Akshatha Benagal, the learned counsel on record for the third and the fifth respondents, submits that her clients have not been furnished with the necessary details even to verify whether any content is available on these respondents’ platform. The learned counsel also proposes to oppose the petition on the ground that a writ against private individuals cannot be sustained. Mr. Praveen K. Uppar, learned Additional Government Advocate, is also heard. 4. This Court, on the second ground of opposition, can opine that the writ petition is essentially for a direction to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police to look into the complaint of telecast of false information and to take necessary action, including action for removal of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:686 WP No. 109868 of 2016 contents from the respective platforms. As such, the petition can be entertained. However, with the passage of time and the petitioner not instructing his counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of rather than be allowed to issue any positive direction. The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE BVV LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5