Delhi High Court
Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 January, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7545/2012
MAULANA MAHMOOD ASAD MADANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mohd. Moonis Abbasi, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG and Mr. S.
Datta, CGSC with Mr Kunal and Ms Ritika,
Advs.for R-1.
Ms Neha Kapoor Khanna, Adv for
Mr Nazmi Waziri, Standing Counsel, GNCTD for
R-7
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 24.01.2013
1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the film "Innocence of
Muslims" and its variants, which portray the Prophet of Islam, Prophet
Mohammad, in an insulting, disrespectful, derogatory, defamatory,
offensive, crude & humiliating manner, is being shown, exhibited,
transmitted or broadcasted in India on Internet website "Youtube.com" and
other social networking sites. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid film
W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 1of 6
abuses the right to freedom of speech and expression and hurts the religious
feelings and sentiments of the Muslim community of India at large.
2. When this matter was taken up on 05.12.2012, the counsel appearing
for the petitioner stated that inspite of the order dated 03.10.2012, in WP(C)
No. 6325/2012, the offending movie continues to be available on Internet.
Earlier, WP(C) No. 6325/2012 was filed by the petitioners, seeking a
direction to Union of India to completely remove and block the links of the
entire movie/trailer of the move, „Innocence of Muslims‟ and all the clips
emanating from the said movie, uploaded on „YouTube‟. At the time of
hearing of the said writ petition, the learned Additional Solicitor General
informed the Court that pursuant to orders of the different District Courts in
the country it had, 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.‟ He further informed that inspite of the same,
variants of the film were still available on the internet, resurfacing on
different servers from different locations by changing the addresses. The
writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents in the petition to
W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 2of 6
treat the petition as a representation and deal with it in accordance with law.
3. The learned senior standing counsel for NCTD, who was representing
Commissioner of Police, Delhi, stated that though the police had blocked
certain sites, the movie popped up at other sites and a request in this regard
was sent to Government of India to take up the matter with the website
"Google". We accordingly directed the Additional Solicitor General to
obtain instructions in this regard.
4. The learned ASG has today placed on record a brief note with respect
to the grievance of the petitioner. It is stated in the note that Department of
Electronics & Information Technology had received several court orders
issued by Courts at Budagam, Ganderbal, Baramula, Srinagar, Anantnag in
Jammu & Kashmir and by Courts at Akola, Bhiwadi, Mumbai and Delhi to
block a number of URLs relating to the movie "Innocence of Muslim" and
in compliance of these court orders, more than 190 URLs were ordered to be
locked. In addition, 52 more URLs were blocked under the provision of
rules notified under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
5. The following are the issues identified in the report read as under:-
"Content filtering, particularly for video/ image is very
difficult and a full proof mechanism has not been
developed as yet.
W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 3 of 6
Content filtering, based on text/ keywords may filter
genuine and innocuous content as well, wherever such
keyword appears.
Content creators are also becoming smarter by giving
seemingly innocuous headings for the content which is
otherwise, objectionable.
Foreign intermediaries do not always cooperate, insisting
that they are governed by their country‟s laws and their
own terms of usage only.
The Internet Technology is such that the same content of
the blocked pathway can re-surface on different servers
from different locations by changing the addresses."
6. The following steps, as per this note, can be taken in the matter:-
Within the framework of the law, specific URLs can be
blocked by the Internet Service Providers. URL Address
is the unique ID that every site link would have and
hosting of such blocked content is an offence under the
Indian Laws.
The intermediaries, as defined under the Act, like
YouTube (Google) in this case, when 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. (Ref. Intermediaries
Guidelines Rules 2011 notified on 11.4.2011 under
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000).
W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 4 of 6
7. We take note of the fact that the respondents are actively seized of the
matter, subject of this petition and have been making sincere efforts to
prevent uploading of the movie in question on Internet. A large number of
URLs, which are the unique ID that every site link would have, have already
been blocked by the respondents. We also take note of the contention of the
learned Additional Solicitor General that no foolproof mechanism has so far
been developed for filtering of the contents on the website on the basis of
video/image, and filtering of the contents on the basis of the text may result
in genuine and innocuous contents also disappearing in case of such
filtering. This is also a fact that the technology enables hosting of same or
similar contents on different servers and from different locations merely by
changing the URL. We are, therefore, satisfied that all reasonably possible
efforts are being made by the respondents to redress the grievance of the
petitioners. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition by directing that as
and when any URL being used for hosting the film in question is brought to
the notice of the respondents, they would make a request to the concerned
service provider to block such a URL so that it is not used for the purpose of
hosting the offensive film. The petitioners are permitted to bring any
W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 5 of 6
information, which they gather in this regard, to the notice of the
respondents, who shall take prompt action in accordance with law as and
when any relevant information is provided to them by the petitioners or
otherwise comes to their knowledge. The respondents will ensure that on
such a request being made by them to the concerned intermediaries such as
Youtube (Google), to block the URLs, being used for showing the film in
question, are immediately blocked by them. If there is non-compliance of
such a requisition by the concerned intermediaries, the respondents will take
action against the intermediaries in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 24, 2013
bg
W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 6 of 6
