Delhi High Court: The present writ petition was filed seeking appropriate directions to Respondents 1 and 2 to monitor and suspend hate speech and harmful content that originated in India from Facebook and was directed towards Rohingya community, both in India and elsewhere. Petitioners also sought directions to Respondents 1 and 2 to halt the use of its virality and ranking algorithms, which encouraged hate speech and violence against minority communities. Petitioners further sought direction to Respondent 3, Union of India, to take steps in accordance with law for restraining Facebook from promoting hate speech covered under Section 153-A(1)(b) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and more particularly against Rohingya community.
The Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ.*, and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.*, opined that petitioners’ suggestion that there should be prior censorship of any publication of Rohingyas on Facebook was an example of ‘a treatment that is worse than the disease’. The Court held that there was a robust grievance redressal mechanism in existence and petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy and they were at liberty to avail the redressal mechanism as per the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (‘the IT Rules 2021’), with respect to any objectionable posts.
Background
Petitioners stated that the present petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) invoking Article 21 of the Constitution for seeking protection of the Right to Life of the members of Rohingya community in Delhi and throughout the country who faced violence as a result of dissemination of hate remarks targeting them on the basis of their ethnicity and religion on Respondents 1 and 2’s platform i.e., Facebook. It was submitted that though the hate speech originates elsewhere, it gets magnified by Facebook’s algorithms so that the hate speech goes viral in India and abroad.
It was further submitted that Facebook promoted hate speech as a part of strategy to increase its revenue and that hate speech was a crime in India under Section 153-A(1)(b) of the IPC and even though Respondents 1 and 2 promised to make amends, it had failed to do so with the objective of enhancing its revenue by magnifying such hate speech. Further, the Islamophobic posts constituted hate speech and were a serious crime under Sections 153-B and 500 of the IPC. Thus, petitioners prayed that Respondent 3 should be given the power of prior censorship of any publication on Facebook regarding Rohingyas.
Respondents submitted that Rule 3(b)(ii) of the IT Rules 2021 imposed a statutory obligation on the social media intermediary to make reasonable efforts to not disseminate information which promoted enmity between different groups of community on the ground of ethnicity or religion and the grievance redressal mechanism by the social media intermediary and appeal to Grievance Appellate Committee(s) was contemplated under Rules 3(2) and 3A of the IT Rules 2021. It was submitted that Respondent 3 had already affirmed its obligations of restraining hate speech by framing the IT Rules 2021.
It was also submitted that Respondents 1 and 2 had taken measures and put in place a mechanism for removing objectionable posts as required under the IT Rules 2021 and had been furnishing monthly reports to the Government. Relief sought by petitioners was pre-publication censorship, which was not within the domain of respondents.
Petitioners admitted that the present petition contained no reference to the IT Rules 2021 or Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021 and that no prior representation raising the grievances made in this petition were raised before Respondent 3.
Analysis, Law, and Analysis
The Court opined that it appeared that petitioners were not aware about either the legal obligations of the social media platforms to not promote dissemination of hate speech and exercise due diligence as stipulated in Rule 3 or the existence of the regulatory framework of IT Rules 2021 and the grievance redressal mechanism provided under the said Rules or the power of Respondent 3 to issue blocking orders under Section 69-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Court agreed with the contention that the IT Rules 2021 also provided for emergency blocking order under Rule 16 at the instance of the Authorized Officer. The Court thus opined that the direction sought by petitioners to Respondent 3 to restrain Facebook from allegedly promoting, amplifying, spreading hate speech covered by Sections 153 and 500 of the IPC and particularly hate speech against Rohingyas did not arise for consideration.
The Court held that the reliefs sought against Facebook (Meta Platforms Inc.) were not maintainable as there was no allegation that it had failed to abide by its statutory obligations under the IT Rules 2021. Further, petitioners had not disputed the statement made by Respondents 1 and 2 that the impugned posts mentioned in the petition stood removed in November 2023.
The Court opined that petitioners suggestion that there should be prior censorship of any publication of Rohingyas on Facebook was an example of ‘a treatment that is worse than the disease’. The Court held that “where an Act provided a complete machinery for redressal the aggrieved party was not permitted to abandon that machinery to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution”.
The Court disposed of the petition and further held that there was a robust grievance redressal mechanism in existence and petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy and they were at liberty to avail the redressal mechanism as per IT Rules 2021, with respect to any objectionable posts.
[Mohammad Hamim v. Facebook India Online Services (P) Ltd., W.P.(C) 1227 of 2024, decided on 30-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Colin Gonslaves, Senior Advocate; Kawalpreet Kaur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Apoorv Kurup, CGSC; Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate; Tejas Karia, Varun Pathak, Shashank Mishra, Shyamlal Anand, Vishesh Sharma, Ramayni Sood, Rahl Unnikrishnan, Nidhi Mittal, Gauri Goburdhun, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
