Mumbai, Dec 12: The Bombay High Court recently held a magistrate does not have power under the Information Technology Rules, 2009, to pass an order to direct the blocking of online content.
Dhyan Foundation Petitions Dismissed
Justice N. J. Jamadar dismissed two petitions filed by NGO Dhyan Foundation, a charitable non-governmental organisation (NGO) working for animal welfare, against the tech giant Google LLC.
NGO Had Sought Removal Of Five YouTube Videos
The NGO had approached a metropolitan magistrate seeking direction to Google to stop circulation of five allegedly defamatory videos on YouTube. The magistrate, on March 31, 2023, allowed the plea and directed Google to stop circulation of the said content.
Contempt Plea Filed After Google Did Not Take Down Content
Despite the magistrate’s order, Google failed to take down the videos. Hence, the NGO filed a contempt petition against Google, which the magistrate entertained and passed an order on December 31, 2024.
Sessions Court Stayed Contempt Proceedings
Google challenged this before the Sessions Court along with an application for condonation of delay. On January 2, the Sessions Court condoned the 116-day delay and stayed the contempt proceedings.
Aggrieved, Dhyan Foundation challenged both orders before the High Court.
Centre Alone Can Block Content Under IT Act: Google
Opposing the plea, Google contended that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act empowers only the Central government or specially authorised officers to direct the blocking of online content for specific reasons, including for protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India and security of the State.
Agreeing, Justice Jamadar noted that prima facie the magistrate might have exceeded his jurisdiction.
Blocking Online Content Impacts Free Speech, Says Court
Blocking material from the public domain effectively restricts both an individual’s right to free speech and the public’s right to receive information and such curbs are permissible only under a clear law with robust safeguards, the court noted.
HC Emphasises Need For Statutory Safeguards
“Blocking circulation of any information sought to be put in the public domain by someone would be curtailing his right to freedom of speech and expression and a corresponding limitation on the right of the public to access information,” the HC said in a detailed order. “Power to curtail free speech cannot be recognised without specific statutory provision with proper safeguards,” it added.
Sessions Court Stay Upheld; Delay Condonation Valid
The court upheld the Sessions Court’s stay order on contempt proceedings, saying that prima facie there is merit in the jurisdictional challenge.
Also Watch:
HC Says Google’s Delay Had Bona Fide Reasons
Justice Jamadar also refused to interfere with the lower court's discretion to condone the delay by Google in filing an appeal. He said that Google's explanation did not lack bona fides.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
