“File Review Petitions”: Delhi HC Disposes Appeals By Google & Microsoft Against Single Bench Direction For Automatic Removal Of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery
|The Delhi High Court, while disposing appeals filed by Google and Microsoft, suggested them to file a petition to review the order of a Single Judge on automatic removal of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII).
The Single Judge had earlier directed these search engines to automatically identify and de-index duplicate instances of NCII. Directives and recommendations further required the search engines to adopt measures beyond their current capabilities, including the use of hash-matching technology, adherence to strict timeframes for content removal, and the development of a third-party platform for registering and removing NCII.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate for the Appellants to file review petitions and bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of the learned Single Judge. In the event, review petitions are filed within two weeks, the same shall not be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.”
Sr. Advocate Arvind K. Nigam represented the appellant, while CGSC Anurag Ahluwalia appeared for the respondent.
Both Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation argued that the order originated from the distressing circumstances faced by a victim, referred to as Mrs. X, who was subjected to non-consensual sexual acts, abuse, and blackmail. Despite police action leading to the arrest of the perpetrator, the scope of the writ petition expanded to address broader issues related to the handling of NCII by search engines.
It was further argued that the Single Judge had issued directions and recommendations requiring search engines to adopt measures “beyond their current capabilities,” stating that the impugned judgment's directives exceeded the bounds of existing law and technology as the search engines lacked the capability to automatically detect and remove NCII without the names of the specific URLs being provided.
“Though technology is in the process of being developed, yet it is not perfect as of today,” added the Search engines in their arguments.
Taking these submissions into account, the High Court suggested that the appellants file review petitions to bring these facts to the notice of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeal.
Cause Title: Google LLC v. X & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Arvind K. Nigam; Advocates Mamta R. Jha, Rohan Ahuja, Shruttima Ehersa and Rahul Choudhary
Respondent: CGSC Anurag Ahluwalia; Advocates Sanjeev Mahajan, Sachin Tandon, Shivam Sachdeva, and Nandita Rao