Bombay High Court on Delay Condonation & Jurisdiction Over Blocking Online Content

Background of the Dispute

The matter arose from allegations by Dhyan Foundation, a registered charitable non-profit organisation engaged in animal rescue, care, treatment and rehabilitation activities, against Google LLC, which operates YouTube and was arrayed as Respondent No. 1.

Dhyan Foundation asserted that five videos uploaded and circulated via YouTube carried per se defamatory content containing false and baseless allegations that damaged its standing and goodwill. The organisation, therefore, approached the criminal court to seek removal of the impugned content.

YouTube is run by Google LLC, which was alleged to have permitted continuous broadcasting and publication of the offensive videos, leading to widespread circulation and reputational harm to the petitioner.

Initial Proceedings Before the Metropolitan Magistrate

First Application – Order Dated 31 March 2023

To address the circulation of these videos, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 4907/2021 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai.

By order dated 31 March 2023, the Magistrate:

  • Directed Respondent No. 1 (Google LLC) to stop and remove circulation of the specified defamatory videos from the YouTube platform; and
  • Directed the State Government – Respondent No. 2 to correspond with Google LLC for ensuring compliance with the rules framed under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Second Application – Disobedience Proceedings

Despite the above order, the videos were not taken down. Claiming non-compliance, Dhyan Foundation initiated further proceedings by filing CC No. Misc/3800448/2023 before the Magistrate, seeking:

  • Initiation of action for disobedience of the order dated 31 March 2023.

This second proceeding essentially sought enforcement of the earlier direction to remove the videos.

Revision Before Sessions Court & Delay Condonation

Criminal Revision and Delayed Filing

In response, Respondent No. 1 approached the Court of Session by way of a Criminal Revision Application challenging the Magistrate’s order dated 31 March 2023. The revision was filed 116 days beyond the period of limitation, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay.

The explanation furnished was that:

  • Google LLC is a large, multi-layered international organisation;
  • Considerable time was spent in internal decision-making, approvals at multiple levels, and finalisation of the draft revision; and
  • The impugned order was alleged to be without jurisdiction, thereby justifying consideration on merits despite the delay.

By order dated 31 December 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge condoned the delay of 116 days and allowed the delay condonation application.

Challenge Before Bombay High Court – Writ Petition No. 760/2025

Dhyan Foundation then approached the Bombay High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 760/2025, contending that:

  • The Sessions Court had mechanically condoned the delay;
  • No “sufficient cause” had been shown within the meaning of the law of limitation; and
  • The length of delay, coupled with the nature of the explanation, did not justify such indulgence.

The High Court was thus called upon to examine whether the Sessions Court’s exercise of discretion in condoning the delay was legally sustainable.

Approach of Courts to “Sufficient Cause”

The High Court reiterated that in matters of condonation of delay:

  • It is the quality and sufficiency of the explanation, not the mere length of the delay, that is decisive;
  • However, when the delay is long and inadequately explained, the length naturally assumes importance;
  • Courts generally lean towards a liberal construction of “sufficient cause” to promote substantive justice over technicalities, provided there is no wilful negligence, lack of bona fides, or dilatory tactics.

The Court emphasised that procedural rules are meant to aid justice, not defeat it. The goal is to have disputes adjudicated on merits, rather than shutting the doors merely on account of delayed filing, unless the delay is clearly unjustified.

Distinction in Appellate Review of Delay Condonation Orders

A key aspect noted by the High Court is the distinction between:

  1. Cases where the court of first instance condones the delay; and
  2. Cases where the court of first instance refuses to condone the delay.

The following principles were highlighted: