The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking directions to social media intermediaries Facebook, Google and X (formerly Twitter) to notify or publish the details of designated officers who coordinate with central government, police and security agencies to deal with the issues of national security, cyber-crimes and crimes against children.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora stated that prayers made by the petitioner in his public interest litigation (PIL) are without any basis since designated officers appointed by intermediaries are to solely interact and coordinate with designated officers appointed by the Central government and the government has not raised any grievance. 

The High Court underlined that Rule 13 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (IT Rules 2009) does not require the intermediary to publish the details of its designated officers appointed under the aforesaid rule. 

The court further mentioned that with the notification and implementation of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021), the grievance raised by the petitioner stands resolved.

The court remarked that with the appointment of the Grievance Officer by the Intermediary under Rule 3(2) and setting up of the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2021, the members of the general public have access to a robust grievance redressal mechanism in case of circulation of any news or posts, which are liable to regulated under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Rules of 2021.

The Delhi High Court was hearing a PIL petition lodged by former RSS ideologue KN Govindacharya claiming that disclosure of the details of the officers of the intermediaries will significantly assist the police and security agencies in resolving the rising number of cyber-crimes against minors together with issues related to national security.

Meanwhile, Facebook told the Court that as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 2009, the intermediary must appoint one officer to receive and handle directions from the Central government. It was informed that Facebook has appointed an officer but he is not an officer who deals with the public at large and that Facebook, on a regular basis, has been handling directions received from the Central government and no complaint has been received from the government in this regard. 

Considering the submissions, the Court disposed of the plea while concluding that no directions needed to be passed.

The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking setting up  of a regulatory authority to review the contents of non-film songs on the grounds that the Central government had clear regulations to keep a tab on the information available on various media platforms. 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the Union government had laid down a clear regime to regulate the content available on public platforms.

The petition had sought immediate ban on all non-film songs having obscene or vulgar content.

It noted that the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 addressed the issue regarding regulation of content being telecast on television.

The High Court observed that mandating a statute or adding provisions to a statute amounted to legislation, which was not permissible in the constitutional scheme of this country.

It said the role of judiciary was primarily to test the legality of a statute and not to amend or modify a statute. Setting up of tribunals, authorities and regulators came purely within the domain of legislature and not in the domain of courts.

The Bench observed that the Union of India had laid down a regimen under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was to be followed by every intermediary.

It further pointed out that Rule 3 & 4 of the Ethics Code applied to various intermediaries like Youtube, WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook. 

Read with the IT Act, the guidelines regulated the nature of content that should not be hosted by these platforms and also provided for offences in case of violation of the Ethics Code. In addition to offences under the IT Act, the violators could also be booked under the Indian Penal Code, added the High Court. 

It said the grievance of the petitioner regarding regulation of non-film songs, their lyrics and videos available on various media platforms was taken care of by the Ethics Code and the regime framed under it.

The Bencho further pointed out that Section 7 of the Ethics Code stated that whenever an intermediary failed to observe these rules, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 79 of the Act shall not be applicable to such intermediary and the intermediary shall be liable for punishment under any law for the time being in force, including the provisions of the Act and the Indian Penal Code.

As per the High Court, Part III of the Ethics Code applied to publishers of news and current affairs content and publishers of online curated content and other intermediaries, which disseminate information on various social and digital media platforms. 

(Case title: Neha Kapoor & Anr vs Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Anr)

ILNS: Following vociferous protest and a complaint to the Union ministry of health against allegedly disparaging comments made by Baba Ramdev against the nation’s allopathic doctors’ community, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) has now sent a defamation notice to the yoga guru. The notice demands an apology from the guru in 15 days, failing which he has to face a defamation compensation demand of Rs 1,000 crore.

The notice – a six-page document – was served on the guru by IMA (Uttarakhand) secretary Ajay Khanna. It was presented by his lawyer Neeraj Pandey. The demand is said to be backed by 2,000 allopathic doctors of the country who have been working day and night in the fight against the Coronavirus pandemic ravaging the country. It is the work of these selfless doctors that has been ridiculed by the yoga guru in social media posts. The demand is at the rate of Rs 50 lakh per member of the 2,000 members of the IMA who are part of this suit.

The defamation notice terms the guru’s comments a criminal act under section of 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

The notice lays down rules for the nature of the apology. It says that the guru has to make a new video in which he will contradict all his previous allegations. He has to then circulate it on all the social media platforms where he had uploaded his earlier (original) disparaging videos.

Read Also: Supreme Court issues notice in plea seeking CBI inquiry into injury caused in police custody to Andhra MP Raghurama Krishnam Raju

The notice also asks the guru to remove “misleading” advertisement of his Coronil kit, which have been promoted as functional against Covid 19.

The High Court of Delhi has restrained the Delhi Police from issuing any statements or circulating information regarding allegations and evidence allegedly collected against one of the founding members of Pinjra Tod, Devanga Kalita, or other accused, to any person, including to the media or on social media platforms.

The bench presided by Justice Vibhu Bakhru was hearing a petition filed by Devanga Kalita, one of the founding members of Pinjra Tod seeking directions to Delhi Police to not leak any allegations pertaining to the Petitioner to the media pending investigation, and also to withdraw all allegations against her.

Counsel for the Petitioner, Advocate Adit S Pujari submitted that the Crime Branch of Delhi Police has been selectively leaking certain information regarding the allegations made against the petitioner and the evidence allegedly collected against her.

Mr Pujari further referred to a note allegedly circulated by the Crime Branch contending that the Crime Branch is leaking out such selective information and evidence to persons from the media. He contended that “such information relating to allegations and alleged evidence is being given much publicity and likely to prejudice the trial of the persons accused in the FIRs including the petitioner. He also refers to news report circulated in Assam whereby certain selective information against the petitioner has been published. He states that such misleading information is likely to place the petitioner and her family members at risk.”

The bench has directed the DCP of the Crime Branch to file a personal affidavit affirming whether any such information as is mentioned in the petition has been circulated by the officials of the Crime Branch to third persons, journalists or on social media within a period of two weeks.

The matter has been posted for next hearing on July 9.

-India Legal Bureau