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.