Delhi HC Rejects PIL Seeking Direction To Formally Notify Details Of Designated Officers Of Social Media Intermediaries

The Delhi High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to formally notify the details of the Designated Officers of the Social Media Intermediaries.

K N Govindacharya, the petitioner, had filed a writ petition in terms of the Rules framed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora said, “The prayer of the Petitioner that the details of the officer(s) appointed by an Intermediary in compliance with Rule 13 of Rules of 2009 should be made available in public domain, is without any basis. The officer under said Rule 13 is to be appointed by Intermediary solely to interact and coordinate with the Designated Officer appointed by the Central Government under Rule 3 of Rules of 2009. There is no grievance raised before this Court by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, i.e., Union of India, that the Intermediaries have failed to comply with their obligation under Rule 13 of Rules of 2009. Therefore, in view of the fact that the officer appointed by an Intermediary under Rule 13 of Rules of 2009 is not required to interact with the general public, we find no merit in the directions sought by the Petitioner in this PIL for publishing their names in public domain.”

The Bench noted that under the Rules of 2009, the details of the Nodal Officer [as defined under Rule 2(f)] are required to be published on the website of each organisation.

Advocate Viraj Gupta represented the petitioner while CGSC Anurag Ahluwalia represented the respondents.

In this case, the petitioner was concerned with the formal notification of the details of the Designated Officer by the Intermediary under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2009. He stated that under the scheme of the Rules of 2009, the officer designated by the Intermediary is required to co-ordinate with the Designated Officer of the Central Government notified under Rule 3. He submitted that disclosure of the details of the officer(s) of the intermediaries will significantly assist the Police and security agencies in resolving the rising number of cyber crimes against minors as well as issues related to National Security.

The petitioner  admitted that the details of the Nodal Officers of the Departments of the Government as per Rule 4 of the 2009 Rules were available in the public domain. He further stated that the Rules of 2021 provides the mechanism for redressal of grievance of the public with the Intermediary as regards any social media post, however, in his petition he was seeking notification in public domain of the officer(s) designated by the Intermediaries under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2009.

The High Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed, “The Nodal Officer under Rule 6 of said Rules is authorized to receive complaint from the members of the public with a request for blocking of access of any information generated, transmitted, received or hosted in any computer resource. Upon receipt of the information, if the organisation, after verification, is satisfied with the request received from public, it shall, through its Nodal Officer, send a request to a Designated Officer [appointed under Rule 3] to take action on the said request. The details of the Nodal Officers are admittedly available in public domain.”

The Court said that pertinently, while Rule 4 of Rules of 2009 requires the details of the Nodal Officer to be published on the website of the organisation, in contrast Rule 13 of said Rules does not require the Intermediary to publish the details of its officers appointed under the said Rule.

“Thus, there is a material distinction in Rule 4 and Rule 13 of the Rules of 2009 and there is no obligation under the Rules for a public notification of the details of the officer designated by the Intermediary under Rule 13. The Petitioner has failed to make out a case for seeking such a direction. … Further, we are of the considered opinion that with the notification and implementation of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the grievance raised by the Petitioner in this PIL stands resolved”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court noted that with the appointment of the Grievance Officer by the Intermediary under Rule 3 (2) and setting up of the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2021, the members of the general public have access to a robust grievance redressal mechanism in case of circulation of any news or posts, which are liable to be regulated under Rule 3 (1) (b) of the Rules of 2021 and that the petitioner has not disputed the existence and effectiveness of the said mechanism.

“As noted above, the list of the Grievance Officer of the Intermediary is required to be published in the public domain under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 2021 and there is no grievance by the Petitioner that the said obligation has not been discharged by the Intermediaries”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court refused to entertain the petition.

Cause Title- K N Govindacharya v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:1225-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Viraj Gupta, Vishal Arun Mishra, Harshita Nigam, and Umang Mangal.

Respondents: CGSC Anuraj Ahluwalia, Advocates Tejas Karia, Varun Pathak, Amee Rana, Thejesh Rajendran, Akhil Shandilya, Shloka Narayanan, and Abhishek Kumar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment