The petitioner sought a court order to publish and revoke the order blocking its messaging app, Briar, under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. Briar, a FOSS app crucial for communication during emergencies, was blocked in Jammu and Kashmir due to national security concerns. The court upheld the block, emphasizing that national security outweighs natural justice principles, and confidentiality is required. The petitioner’s claims of procedural lapses were dismissed, and the writ petition was denied.
Significant Litigation
These are some of the significant litigation that we are following.
World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection
A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in appeal has by its judgement in World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection (FAO (OS) 506/2013 dated 15.10.2014) defined the jurisdictional rules which apply to eCommerce and online retailers. These rules are limited to suits for trademark and copyright infringement.
Suresh Mansharamani vs. Union of India, Ministry of Electronics
In the case of Suresh Mansharamani vs. Union of India, Ministry of Electronics on January 30, 2024, the Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Subramonium Prasad, dismissed the petition. The petitioner approached the court seeking to quash the decision dated September 19, 2021, by Meta Platforms, which suspended his advertisement and business accoun. The court held that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and can appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days. The court did not comment on the merits of the case and disposed of the petition and pending applications.
WhatsApp LLC v. Union of India (transferred to the DHC)
WhatsApp has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution before the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura, challenging the constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Intermediary Guidelines”). The petition also contested an order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, which directed WhatsApp to disclose the originator of a chat containing a fake resignation letter of the Chief Minister of Tripura, as per Rule 4(2) of the Intermediary Guidelines.
WhatsApp argued that the Intermediary Guidelines mandate compliance with judicial orders only on specific grounds, such as preventing and investigating offenses related to national security and public order. They contended that the Magistrate’s order did not establish grounds of public order or imminent threat as required.
The Union of India has argued that WhatsApp, as an intermediary, lacked the legal standing to challenge the disclosure of the message’s originator. On September 27, 2023, the High Court granted interim relief to WhatsApp, staying the Magistrate’s order, noting that the issue of ‘threat to public order’ had not been adequately addressed.
The case has now been transferred to the DHC along with other cases relating to the IT Act 2021.
Private School Association J&K v. U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir
In the case of Private School Association J&K v. U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir [W.P. (C) No. 63 of 2021], the petitioners challenged the restrictions on internet speed in Jammu and Kashmir, arguing that it hindered online education during the COVID-19 pandemic and violated the Right to Education. The Supreme Court weighed public safety concerns against fundamental rights, ultimately deciding in favour of maintaining internet restrictions due to security threats. The Court acknowledged the necessity of balancing civil liberties with national security concerns
In Re Prashant Bhushan, Twitter Communications India Pvt. Ltd.
On August 20, 2020, the Supreme Court of India held public interest lawyer Prashant Bhushan in contempt for two tweets that criticized the judiciary and the Chief Justice. The Court found that the tweets undermined the authority of the Supreme Court and were detrimental to public trust in the judiciary. Bhushan was fined a nominal amount of INR 1. The Court’s decision, while symbolic in its punishment, highlights the judiciary’s stance on protecting its institutional integrity and the limits it places on public criticism.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on July 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of India ruled on the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that a certificate under Section 65B(4) is necessary unless the original document is produced. In the case general directions were issued to be followed by courts that deal with electronic evidence, to ensure their preservation, and production of certificate at the appropriate stage.
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
The Supreme Court of India ruled that it falls under the Right to Information Act as a public authority. This decision stemmed from requests by activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal for information on judges’ assets and appointments, initially denied but later granted by the Chief Information Commission. The Delhi High Court upheld this ruling which was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court balanced privacy rights against the public interest, concluding that information about its functioning and judicial assets should be disclosed for transparency, while third-party information required further examination.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.
The Supreme Court affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The landmark ruling, made by a nine-judge bench, unanimously held that privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and is protected under the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. This judgement paved the way for greater scrutiny of government actions affecting privacy, including the Aadhaar scheme, and underscored the need for robust data protection laws in India.
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 199(1) to 199(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, including those protecting reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that criminal defamation laws are neither vague nor disproportionate and that these laws provide a balanced approach between safeguarding individual dignity and allowing free speech. The Court emphasized that the provisions serve the public interest and do not unduly restrict freedom of expression.
Blog
-
Netflix Summoned by the MIB Over Controversial IC-814 Series
-
DOT releases Draft Rules under Telecommunications Act, 2023
-
MEITY to release draft DPDP rules for public consultation after Budget session
-
Impact of Broadcasting Bill, 2024 on Digital Communications and Media
-
A licence raj for digital content creators
News
-
Netflix Summoned by the MIB Over Controversial IC-814 Series
-
DOT releases Draft Rules under Telecommunications Act, 2023
-
MEITY to release draft DPDP rules for public consultation after Budget session
-
ET : Final Draft of the DPDP, Rules to be ready in two weeks
-
Nigeria FCCPC fines Meta $220 million for violating data laws