The Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Alok Kumar vs Union of India and ors. comprising of Division Bench, Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice R.C. Khulbe impose the costs of Rs. 50000/- on Facebook in the PIL where petitioners alleged against them that they had failed to act in terms of the grievance redressal mechanism.
Four weeks’ time was also granted to respondent no.6- Facebook for filing their counter affidavit which should also disclose the steps taken by the said respondent to comply with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Facts:
The petitioner had filed a PIL in the Uttarakhand High Court last year to seek a Mandamus, commanding the respondents to frame guidelines to deal with cases of online extortion, and online abuse that particularly impacts the younger generation and the order of commanding respondents to coordinate amongst themselves to operate a 24*7 effective helpline number to deal with cases of online abuse. The grievance of the petitioner was that someone had uploaded a morphed video, containing obscenity involving the petitioner, and the same had also been circulated. The petitioner complained about the same to respondent no.6. The “automatic reply” received from respondent no.6, on 20.07.2021, reads as follows: Thank you for your email. Please note that this email is used only for the purpose of answering questions about the process to submit user grievances to Facebook. Facebook will not respond to grievances submitted to this email. If you have a grievance that you would like to submit to Facebook, you may do so here.
Petitioner Contentions
The Counsel for the petitioner contends before the Court that Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 have been framed by the Central Government in the exercise of powers conferred by subsection (1), clauses (z) and (zg) of sub-section (2) of section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 superseding the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which obliged the publisher – which would include respondent no.6 to act in terms of the grievance redressal mechanism and self-regulating mechanism contained in the aforesaid Rules. However, respondent no.6 had not acted in terms of the said grievance redressal mechanism and the complaint of the petitioner had fallen on deaf ears.
The counsel further contends that even though respondent no.6-Facebook was served in the year 2021 and the Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.6 was filed as early as 27.10.2021, no counter affidavit had been filed to date. On the other hand, the counsel for Facebook sought more time to file the counter affidavit.
Observations of the Court
This court in its observation observes that "prima-facie, it appears that respondent no.6 is not complying with the aforesaid Rules, which are statutory in character and binds respondent no.6. Therefore, Court on respondent no. 6 imposes the costs of Rs.50000/- and directs the Respondent No. 6 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner and the remaining amount shall be deposited with the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association.
Further, the court granted four weeks’ time to respondent no.6 for filing their counter affidavit which should also disclose the steps taken by the said respondent to comply with the aforesaid Rules.
Decision:
The division bench had imposed the costs of Rs. 50000/- on Facebook for failing to reply to a petition alleging circulation of a morphed video on the social media site, where prima facie it appears that the Meta-owned platform is not complying with aforesaid rules.
Case: Alok Kumar vs Union of India and ors.
Citation: Writ Petition(PIL) No. 151 of 2021
Coram: Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and R.C. Khulbe
Dated: 07.12.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
