The Bombay High Court recently held that Rule 10 of the Information Technology Rules, 2009 is not a source of power for a Magistrate to direct the blocking of online content [Dhyan Foundation v. Google LLC & Anr.].The observations came in two petitions filed by Dhyan Foundation, a charitable non-governmental organisation (NGO) working for animal welfare, against the tech giant Google LLC.Aggrieved by five allegedly defamatory videos on YouTube, it approached the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Mumbai and obtained an order directing Google to stop circulation of the said content. When Google failed to comply, the NGO initiated contempt proceedings, which the Magistrate entertained.Google challenged this before the Sessions Court along with an application for condonation of delay. After the Sessions Court condoned the 116-day delay and stayed the contempt proceedings, Dhyan Foundation challenged both orders before the Bombay High Court..Google argued that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act empowers only the Central government or specially authorized officers to direct the blocking of online content for specific reasons, including for protecting the sovereignty, integrity of India and security of the State..Justice NJ Jamadar also noted that there was a prima facie case that the Magistrate might have exceeded his jurisdiction.The Court also observed that blocking material from the public domain effectively restricts both an individual’s right to free speech and the public’s right to receive information and said such curbs are permissible only under a clear law with robust safeguards.“Blocking circulation of any information sought to be put in the public domain by someone would be curtailing his right to freedom of speech and expression and a corresponding limitation on the right of the public to access information. Power to curtail free speech cannot be recognised without specific statutory provision with proper safeguards,” the Court said..The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's stay on contempt proceedings against Google, finding prima facie merit in the jurisdictional challenge.As for the challenge to the sessions court’s decision to condone the delay, the NGO argued that bureaucratic hurdles in a large corporation do not constitute sufficient cause. However, the High Court rejected this argument. It emphasised that courts should prefer deciding matters on their merits rather than on technicalities.Justice Jamadar also observed that Google's explanation did not lack bona fides and declined to interfere with the lower court's discretion to condone the delay..Advocates Harish Pandya, Raju Gupta and Mavali Jadhav appeared for the NGO.Senior advocates Aabad Ponda with advocates C Keswani, Tanmay Bhave, Chandrama Raje briefed by Economic Laws Practice appeared for Google.Additional public prosecutor AD Kamkhedkar appeared for the State.[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
