The Magistrate cannot invoke IT Rules 2009, held the Bombay High Court while examining the legality of an order that restrained Google from circulating certain YouTube videos.
In a dispute initiated by Dhyan Foundation regarding five allegedly defamatory videos, the High Court observed that Rule 10 of the Information Technology Rules 2009 does not clothe a Magistrate with the authority to direct the blocking of online content, nor can it be treated as an independent source of such power.
Court questions jurisdiction exercised by Magistrate
Dhyan Foundation had approached the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, alleging that defamatory material was circulating online.
The Magistrate proceeded to direct Google to prevent further dissemination. When Google did not comply, contempt proceedings were set into motion.
Google carried the matter to the Sessions Court, assailing the Magistrate’s jurisdiction and seeking condonation of a 116 day delay in filing its challenge.
The Sessions Court condoned the delay and stayed the contempt case. The NGO then brought both orders under scrutiny before the High Court.
Justice NJ Jamadar noted that the Magistrate Cannot Invoke IT Rules 2009 for issuing blocking directions, especially when Section 69A of the IT Act reserves such powers exclusively for the Central Government or duly authorised officers acting under statutory safeguards.
Free speech cannot be curtailed without strict statutory backing
The High Court emphasised that blocking any content from the public domain curtails not merely the creator’s right to expression but also the public’s right to access information.
The Court underscored that restrictions of this nature can operate only through explicit legislative mechanisms that incorporate rigorous safeguards.
The Court observed that a prima facie case existed showcasing that the Magistrate may have overreached the jurisdiction vested in a criminal court. It therefore refused to interfere with the Sessions Court’s stay on contempt proceedings.
Delay condonation upheld
Dhyan Foundation argued that Google could not cite internal corporate processes as sufficient cause for delay.
The High Court disagreed and clarified that justice should lean towards adjudication on merits rather than harsh technical barriers.
The Court found Google’s explanation bona fide and declined to upset the Sessions Court’s decision.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
Dhyan Foundation v. Google LLC & Anr.
