Delhi High Court: In a case involving steps taken by social media platforms to provide timely information, the Division Bench of Pratibha M. Singh* and Amit Sharma, JJ., noted that in a large number of cases, the Investigation Officers might not be fully aware of the manner in which information could be obtained from the various platforms, and sometimes precious time was lost. Thus, the Court stated that insofar as the Delhi Police was concerned, the matter might be escalated to the Commissioner of Police at the Delhi Police Headquarters for coordinating with the platforms and for taking steps towards preparation of a handbook that might be utilised and disseminated to all police stations, who might need urgent information from these platforms.
Background
In the present case, pursuant to the directions passed by the present Court as per the order dated 28-10-2024, written submissions/notes were filed by the entities, namely Meta Platforms Inc., WhatsApp LLC, Telegram FZ-LLC, M/s Google LLC and Reddit Inc.
The Meta submitted that it had established a Law Enforcement Online Request System (‘LEORS’), which is a platform used by Law Enforcement Agencies to put in their request for data disclosure. Further, the Meta submitted that a separate provision was made for making emergency requests. In case of emergency requests which were received, responses were given by the platform in a matter of minutes for example, 18 minutes and 30 minutes in case of missing children etc.
Similarly, WhatsApp reiterated the similar stand and submitted that it had received a substantial number of data disclosure requests and emergency requests. The stand of WhatsApp was that there were instances when information relating to terrorist activities were disclosed by WhatsApp within 12 minutes of receiving the request. The WhatsApp platform also provided the Basic Subscriber Information available with it, though it did not have information relating to the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) of devices.
Further, the Telegram submitted that a nodal officer had been appointed to deal with even further emergency requests and most of the times, information is provided as expeditiously as possible. On behalf of Google, it was submitted that it had a Law Enforcement Request System (LERS) which processes and deals with requests received from Law Enforcement Agencies. According to Google, it had created a dedicated platform for the Indian Government even for content removal. Similarly, Reddit Inc., also submitted that in case of emergency involving imminent death or serious bodily harm or other emergencies, there were separate processes for seeking information by Law Enforcement Agencies.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the current status was that most of the platforms were unanimous on the position that when there were emergency requests made by Law Enforcement Agencies, the deadline of 72 hours, as prescribed in the Rule 3(1)(j) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, was merely treated as a maximum time and in most case of emergencies, the same were dealt with and information was provided as quickly as possible.
The Court observed that the social media platforms had expressed their clear intent to work with the agencies for the purpose of training and preparation of any material that might enable all the features on their platform to be fully utilised.
The Court stated that considering that the present petition was in the nature of habeas corpus, wherein the status reports filed by State revealed that despite repeated attempts, the missing boy was yet not traceable, the investigation of this case was handed over to Anti Human Trafficking Unit (‘AHTU’), Crime for taking diligence steps to trace the missing boy. Further, regarding the larger issue of cooperation between intermediaries was concerned, final opportunity was given to the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) to place its position on record so that appropriate directions, if any, could be issued.
The Court noted that in many cases, the Investigation Officers might not be fully aware of the way information could be obtained from the various platforms, and sometimes precious time was lost. Thus, the Court stated that insofar as the Delhi Police was concerned, the matter might be escalated to the Commissioner of Police at the Delhi Police Headquarters for coordinating with the platforms and for taking steps towards preparation of a handbook that might be utilised and disseminated to all police stations, who might need urgent information from these platforms.
The Court stated that the said handbook could include the details of the way the requests had to be made and the details of the Nodal Officers of these platforms. In case any training was required, the Commissioner of Police might also call for meeting with the platforms and hold training sessions for Police Officials, so that, in serious cases there was proper cooperation, collaboration and timely furnishing of information by the platforms to avert the commission of crime or to obtain information which might be required during the course of any investigation.
The Court directed the Standing Counsel (Criminal) to coordinate with the Office of the Commissioner of Police and the Counsels appearing for the various platforms to hold the meeting and place the minutes of meetings on record by the next date of hearing. Further, the Court directed MHA/MeitY to file their status report/affidavit at least three days by the next date of hearing and AHTU, Crime should file the latest status repost regarding missing boy in this case by the next date of hearing.
The matter would next be listed on 11-12-2024.
[Shabana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7970, decided on 13-11-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Pratibha M. Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Fozia Rahman Advocate from DHCLSC along with Sikander A. Siddiqui, Aafreen, Kartikay Dixit, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Priyam Agarwal and Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Advocates with SI Kunal Parkash and Insp. Sandeep Kumar PS Bhajan Pura; Anurag Ahluwalia CGSC, Tarveen Singh Nanda GP, Hridyanshi Sharma, Advocate; Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate, Tejas Karia; Varun Pathak; Amee Rana; Dhruv Bhatnagar; Prasidhi Agrawal; Tanuj Sharma, Advocates; Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate; Vivek Reddy, Senior Advocate; Swati Agarwal, Shashank Mishra, Akshi Rastogi, Shivika Mattoo, Advocates; Raj Shekhar Rao, Senior Advocate; Neel Mason, Ekta Sharma and Pragya Jain, Advocates; Alipak Banerjee, Sreeja Sengupta and Brijesh Ujjainwal, Advocates; Naveen Kumar Raheja and Anant Vijay Singh, Advocates.
