Abhinav Arora - Self Proclaimed Saint Files Cases Against Youtubers: What Are The Cases About?

SYNOPSIS

Abhinav Arora, who claims to be a ten-year-old spiritual orator, has gone to court against seven YouTubers for allegedly harassing and defaming him in the social media. The lawsuit is the result of viral video controversy in which the boy was publicly rebuked by Swami Rambhadracharya, a well-known Hindu spiritual leader. Uploading videos making fun of his faith, threats of physical violence from family members and sharing unauthorized personal photographs are included. It has been initiated based on the sections available under the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act. Reactions have come in in varying ways. Questions also are there on the aspect of content creators' roles, along with the weakness in the area of exposure in digital platforms by child influencers.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Abhinav Arora is a ten-year-old self-proclaimed spiritual orator who has earned the sobriquet of "Bal Sant Baba." He is now in a court combat against seven YouTubers. His family has filed a criminal complaint in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, saying that these people troll and defame him online, particularly after a virality incident wherein he was publicly reprimanded by the Hindu spiritual leader Swami Rambhadracharya during some religious event. This incident has attracted a lot of controversy and debate regarding the authenticity of the spiritual figure of Abhinav and the nature of discourse pertaining to public persons online in religious contexts.

THE BASIS FOR THE LAWSUIT

Accusing these YouTubers with the charges of defamation, harassment, and infringement upon private life, Abhinav's mother tells a complaint which states how they "maliciously designed content to mock" religious convictions and undermine that which they could do and follow the belief of.

KEY ALLEGATIONS

1. Defamation and Trolling: Allegedly, they published a series of videos that defamed the commitment and honesty of Abhinav to the extent that other members of social media started criticizing him and started trolling by uploading pictures from his accounts with his consent.
2. Threats and Harassment: The family has reportedly received several threats since online trolling, which include claims of death threats allegedly due to the notorious Lawrence Bishnoi gang, and this raises their threats of safety and well being for Abhinav
3. Violation of privacy: The complaint submits the acts committed by the above accused persons constitute an act of invasion of privacy, bearing in mind that Abhinav is a minor.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

There are various Indian law provisions which give legal basis for this cause:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections related to defamation (Section 499) and criminal intimidation (Section 506) are specifically relevant here. Indian law regarding defamation gives the right of recourse in case a false and defamatory statement against any person harms his reputation.
2. Information Technology Act: It pertains to cyber-crime and electronic commerce. This, specifically Section 66A pertains to the matter of harassment and defamation in cyberspaces, which are to be dealt with as applicable here since the complaints are connected to online nature.
3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act: Because Abhinav is a minor, as per Section 76, this act ensures special protection for children against exploitation and abuse and may comprise online harassment as well.

PUBLIC REACTION AND IMPLICATIONS

This case has hogged the media attention and many public debates regarding child influencers and their vulnerability in this digital world. Many have claimed that Abhinav should be protected from online trolls, while critics question the reality of his public persona as a spiritual leader. This issue raises larger questions about the liability of creators on YouTube as well as its influence on young minds.

STATEMENTS OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES

Abhinav has refused to initiate any case but he cannot steer clear of it as continuous threats and harassments to him and his family force him. He says that this kind of situation is no less than what Lord Rama has faced in Hindu mythology, 'there was an inner calling by the god for fighting crime despite all kinds of repressive sentiments".
Currently, seven YouTubers are facing a lawsuit filed by Abhinav Arora's family for defamation and harassment. The specific wrongs which they have perpetrated as the family terms them as defamatory are listed below.

1. Mocking religious beliefs: The YouTubers are charged with releasing videos that were "maliciously designed" to mock and dethrone Abhinav's religious beliefs he has as a Sanatana Dharma follower. According to the complaint, these videos demean his practices and humiliate him in public.
2. Hate Speech: The term for the respondents is "anti-Hindu elements" spreading hatred for Hindu practices and beliefs. This nomenclature concludes that it is not criticism but negativity towards the beliefs of those who follow Hinduism
3. Invasion of Privacy: It is for the accounts of the family that YouTubers used personal images from Abhinav's account without permission violating the privacy further. His emotional pain would increase further because he is only ten years old.
4. Emotional Disturbance: According to reports, the videos have caused grave emotional suffering to Abhinav, thereby preventing him from being able to worship freely and live without harassment. His mother said that such trolling caused immense stress on the family, disturbing the daily activities and mental sanity of family members.
5. Death Threats: The family of Abhinav further alleged that due to the death threats from an organized crime gang, which they believe is because of the content of the YouTubers, have raised the stakes on Abhinav's safety. This lawsuit addresses issues of online harassment at large, specifically with regard to minors in public life and the accountability of the creators of content on social media.

INDIAN LEGAL FARMEWORK FOR ONLINE HARASSMENT AGAINST MINORS:

The Indian legal system has evolved gradually over the years to handle cyber harassment, especially where a child is involved. No law has been framed strictly to deal with cyberbullying or online harassment. Instead, there are laws in place that guide victims toward relief and protection. This is how the Indian legal system deals with such cases generally: 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1. IPC: The Indian Penal Code has many sections, most of which are to be used for the case of online harassment through the internet as follows:
   •    Defamation: As stipulated in Section 499, any person who reputation is damaged on account of false statements made, could seek redress.
   •    Criminal Intimidation: Section 503 stated that threats issued to some person with intent to cause him to fear injury are prohibited. Therefore, cases about online harassment can fall within that category where the minor faces an online threat.
   •    Stalking: Provided by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, Section 354D Dealt with persistent following or contact with someone with a disinterest, in any manner in person, online, and makes punishment for it.
2. Information Technology Act: The IT Act encompasses various cybercrimes and its provisions include the sending of offensive messages under Section 66A. Even though the Supreme Court had deemed this section to be unconstitutional, other provisions are still available to bring into action for cases involving online harassment.
3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act: This act submits that children need special protection from exploitation and abuse, including online harassment cases.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

The judicial has not remained passive too. It has been very proactive in interpreting the laws in place to protect the minors from cybercrime harassment:

• In State of Maharashtra v. Prashant Dhanajay Thakre (2020), a judgment was delivered which upheld the conviction of a person for sending threatening messages on social media and that these are, in fact, criminal acts.
• In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), freedom of speech was brought to focus upon judgment being pronounced but also dealt with the pleas seeking protection from online abuse in the process.

CHALLENGES FACED

However, despite the existence of such legal provisions, several challenges still persist:

1. Lack of Specific Laws: There is no dedicated law in respect of cyberbullying, and general provisions are applied, and often these provisions are not sufficient in pointing out the nuances of online harassment.
2. Awareness and Accessibility: Lack of awareness of rights and legal remedies opens avenues for underreporting, and lack of action by the authorities to punish offenders.
3. Implementation Problems: Police action and judicial processes take a long period, which prevents victims from moving on with their cases.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

This has been yet another case like that of Abhinav Arora who has brought attention to the current issue about online harassment of minors. His family took legal relief in the court against some YouTubers, stating those culprits had caused emotional stress, and threats of harm were made. Such cases, therefore, will eventually catalyse better awareness on these areas and may more reforms pertaining to protection of minors who would eventually face online abuse.

CONCLUSION

The case of Abhinav Arora against seven YouTubers brings to the fore very critical issues about online behaviour, child safety in digital spaces, and the intersection of religion and public personas. As this case unfolds in court, it might set important precedents on how minors are treated in media narratives and how online platforms manage content that may lead to harassment or defamation. These matters will most likely be further highlighted during the court hearings in terms of legal standards as well as societal norms related to respect for individual dignity in public discourse.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

1.    What led Abhinav Arora to the lawsuit against the YouTubers?
Abhinav Arora, otherwise known as "Bal Sant Baba," is a ten-year-old spiritual influencer that was sued by seven different YouTubers due to accusations of online trolling and harassment and defamation after footage went viral showing him rebuked by Swami Rambhadracharya during a religious ceremony. It has been said that through this, his family will state that these YouTubers have caused emotional disturbances to him and violated their right to privacy.

2.    What are the allegations against the YouTubers?
The allegations are that they have made such videos that ridicule and profane Abhinav's religion; they have used personal photographs without permission, and subjected Abhinav to threats and harassments. The pleading states that these acts have also severely impacted Abhinav's right to practice the religion of his choice freely and the death threats from third party groups.

3.    What legal provision is being invoked in this matter?
This is all based on the provisions available under Indian law, and some of these include the defamation provision available under the IPC, criminal intimidation, as well as violations under the Information Technology Act in regards to the harassment that happened online. As Abhinav is still a minor, the case touches upon the Juvenile Justice Act.

4.    How did the general public react to this?
As an entertaining case, the present legal procedure has received widespread coverage and public debate about issues pertaining to child influencers' treatments as well as content providers on various social media. Here are some people speaking on the side of Abhinav by defending his right towards safety from online bullying but the other half are bringing their critique saying that his public profile isn't genuine and asking where his family is with regards to the motive for litigation.

5.    What is happening with the case?
After the Mathura court has sought an action taken report from the local police on the complaint which has been filed, the next date is scheduled for November 6, 2024. On this date, any developments made as well as potential actions which may be issued against the accused YouTubers will be addressed.