Petitioner seeking compensation for getting distracted by obscene YouTube Ads during exam

In Anand Kishor Choudhary v. Google India Pvt Ltd, the Supreme Court on Friday reprimanded the petitioner who sought a compensation of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-five lakhs only) from Googler India for distracting him as he prepared for his upcoming exams.

The petitioner accused the Google-owned streaming platform YouTuber of displaying obscene advertisements that made him lose focus and led to him to not succeeding in the Madhya Pradesh Police exam. He appealed before the court to put a ban on nudity content on social media platforms and invoked Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution which outlines the considerate restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression.


The said appeal was heard by the Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka. The excerpts from the judgment read out: “This is one of the most atrocious petitions ever filed under Article 32 of the constitution.  stating that while he was preparing for MP Police exams, he subscribed to YouTube where there were sexual advertisements. He sought notice from YouTube of 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 a waste of judicial time,”


Justice Kaul asked the petitioner on what grounds does he need compensation for; was it for the usage of the internet or failing an exam due to the internet? One can not seek compensation for the shift in his/her attention by sexual content depicted in the advertisement. While dismissing the case Justice Kaul imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 /- (Rupees One Lakh only) on the petitioner for wasting the precious time of the court and for his conduct.

The petitioner apologized in person to the court for this and stated that his parents are daily wage laborers. To this the court responded back by saying that it could reduce the exemplary damages to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) which has to be submitted with the Supreme Court’s Mediation Centre but it will not forgive the said petitioner for filing a senseless petition. Justice Kaul further stated that the court is not a place to be approached for the mere sake of publicity nor for the recovery of money. After hearing this the petitioner added on in his statement that he does not have a source of income and wishes to withdraw the petition. The Bench said, “Recovery will be done if you don’t pay”


The Supreme Court at the beginning of the year expressed its concern for the rapid growth in the ill-considered Public Interest Litigations. The Bench comprised of Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli criticizing the above practice as misusing the judicial time.


Source: LiveLaw and Bar & Bench


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *