Delhi High Court
Mohd. Amanullah & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 October, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd October, 2012
+ W.P.(C) No.6325/2012
% MOHD. AMANULLAH & ORS. ....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Jagat, Mr. Mubin, Mr. Sarfraz Khan,
Ms. S. Anjum & Ms. Firdos Wani,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.
Sumeet Pushkarna, Mr. Ashish
Virmani & Mr. Gaurav Varma, Advs.
for UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This petition filed in public interest seeks a direction to the Union of
India to completely remove and block the links of the entire movie / trailer
of the movie, 'Innocence of Muslims' and all the clips emanating from the
said movie, uploaded on 'YouTube' (respondent No.3) owned by 'Google
India Private Ltd.' (respondent No.2).
2. Learned ASG appearing on advance notice has handed over a
summary of submissions with documents informing that in pursuance to the
orders of the different District Courts in the country it has, in exercise of
powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000,
already blocked as many as 157 Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) hosting
content related to clipping titled 'Innocence of Muslims'; that contravention
of Section 69A invites imprisonment of seven years and / or fine; that
inspite of the same, variants of the film are still available on the internet,
resurfacing on different servers from different locations by changing the
addresses; that hosting of such blocked content is an offence under the
Indian laws and intermediaries like 'You Tube' and 'Google', in accordance
with the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011 notifed on 11.04.2011 under
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, upon being informed
of such illegal content, are required to initiate action and work with the
person who posted such content for disablement wherever applicable within
36 hours; that as and when intimation of any new URL hosting the said film
is received, the same is also being blocked.
3. We are of the view that the Delhi Police, whose Economic Offences
Wing has a Cyber Crime Cell, is a necessary and proper party to this
petition. On oral request of the counsel for the petitioner, Delhi Police is
impleaded as respondent No.4.
4. Though the counsel for the petitioners states that notices of this
petition be issued to respondent No.2 Google India Private Ltd. and
respondent No.3 YouTube but finding that the petitioners before filing this
petition claiming mandamus have neither made any demand for justice /
representation nor made any complaint to the Police and further, that no
purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending in as much as
direction for enforcement of law is to be issued, we dispose of this petition
with a direction to the Union of India and the Delhi Police to treat this writ
petition as a representation of the petitioners and to deal therewith in
accordance with law and if any offence is found to have been committed, to
take necessary action in respect thereto in accordance with law. We also
grant liberty to the petitioners to forward a copy of this order to the Delhi
Police for compliance.
The petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Dasti.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 03, 2012
'gsr'
