The Delhi High Court refused to pass any orders directing social media company Facebook (Meta) to change its algorithm and prevent hate speech against the Rohingya community [Mohammad Hamim and Anr v Facebook India Online Services Pvt Ltd and Ors].

In an order passed on January 30, a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that passing an order for prior censorship of any publication against Rohingyas would be an example of “a treatment that is worse than the disease”.

The Court said that reliefs sought against Facebook which included directions to change their algorithm, stop spread of hate speech and take down hateful content against the Rohingya community, are not maintainable.

“Similarly, the reliefs sought against Meta Platforms Inc are not maintainable as there is no allegation in the writ petition that the said Respondents have failed to abide by its statutory obligations under the IT Rules 2021. The Petitioners have not disputed the statement made by learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 [Facebook] that the impugned posts mentioned at paragraph 19 of the writ petition (barring 3 posts which appear on the account of accredited news channel) stood removed in November, 2023; whereas, the present petition has been filed in January 2024 and was listed for the first time today,” the order said.

The Court said that it appeared that the petitioners were not aware about the legal obligations of the social media platforms to not promote dissemination of hate speech and exercise due diligence as stipulated in Rule 3 of the Information Technology Rules and the grievance redressal mechanism provided under those rules.

In fact, as rightly contended by the Standing counsel for Union of India, the IT Rules also provide for emergency blocking order under Rule 16 at the instance of the Authorized Officer. It is not the contention of the petitioners that the said redressal mechanism is not efficacious, the order noted.

“Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid Rules the direction sought by the Petitioners to Union of India to restrain Facebook from allegedly promoting, amplifying, spreading hate speech covered by Section 153 and 500 of IPC and particularly hate speech against Rohingyas does not arise for consideration.”

The Court finally disposed of the petition holding that there is a robust grievance redressal mechanism under the IT Rules and the petitioners have that alternative efficacious remedy to avail for any objectionable posts.

Mohammad Hamim and Kawsar Mohammed had filed the PIL in the High Court through advocate Kawalpreet Kaur.

Hamim and Mohammed had fled persecution in Myanmar and reached India in July 2018 and March 2022 respectively.

They alleged that misinformation, harmful content and posts originating in India targeting Rohingya refugees are widespread on Facebook and there is evidence to show that the platform is intentionally not acting against such posts.

In fact, its algorithms promote such content, the plea stressed.

While hearing the matter on Tuesday, the Court had expressed apprehension that the prayers sought in the PIL would amount to granting pre-publication censorship power to the government which may be dangerous for freedom of speech.

"Please understand where you are heading with this... If you are saying that State can do censorship then you will have to give them all the power and they will love it. Do you think governments will misuse the power and curtail free speech? Hate speech must be curtailed but we are exploring whether we should give the power to the Union of India to do this censorship," the Court had remarked.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonslaves argued the case for the petitioner. He was assisted by advocate Kawalpreet Kaur.

Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar along with advocates Tejas Karia, Varun Pathak, Shashank Mishra, Shyamlal Anand, Vishesh Sharma, Ramayni Sood and Rahul Unnikrishnan appeared for Meta Platforms Inc.

Union of India was represented through Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Apoorv Kurup as well as advocates Nidhi Mittal and Gauri Goburdhun.

[Read Judgment]