New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by a person seeking Rs 75 lakh compensation from YouTube for allegedly carrying sexually explicit advertisements which he claimed that the advertisements distracted him during his preparation for Madhya Pradesh Police examination.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka slammed the petitioner, Anand Kishor Choudhary, for filing “atrocious” petition and imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on him.
The petitioner could have chosen not to watch the advertisements, said the apex court, and slammed him for filing such a atrocious It plea, and noted that such petitions are utter wastage of judicial time.
“One of the most atrocious petitions filed by the petitioner stating that while he was preparing for MP Police exams, he subscribed to YouTube where there were sexual advertisements. He sought notice to YouTube and ban on nudity in ads and Rs 75 lakh compensation. If you do not like the ad, do not watch it. Why he watched the ad is his prerogative. Such petitions are utter waste of judicial time,” the bench said.
Choudhary moved the apex court seeking Rs 75 lakh compensation from Google-owned streaming platform, YouTube, and alleged that he was distracted by the sexual content in advertisements on the platform while he was preparing for the exam and hence unable to unable to pass a Madhya Pradesh police recruitment examination.
He also sought a blanket ban on nudity on social media platforms.
Initially, the bench was imposing a cost of Rs one lakh on the petitioner, however, he apologised to the court, claiming his parents are labourer, and sought to withdraw the petition.
To this, Justice Kaul said, “Aap ko laagta hain ki publicity ke liye jab chahe idhar aa sakte ho. Cost kam kar dunga lekin maaf nahi karuna (You think you can come to this court whenever you want publicity. I will reduce the costs but will not forgive you).”
The bench then reduced the costs to Rs 25,000 and asked him to deposit it with the Supreme Court’s Mediation Centre.
As the petitioner told the bench that he is unemployed to which the Justice Kaul said, “Rozgaar nahi hain toh hum recovery karenge (If you are unemployed, recovery will be done if you don’t pay).”
UNI
