On October 23, 2019, the High Court of Delhi issued an order whereby it affirmed that Indian courts can issue global take down orders to Internet intermediaries like Facebook, Google and Twitter for illegal content uploaded from IP addresses within India.
Facts of the Case
The case involves content in the form of videos about the book on Swami Ramdev (popularly known as Baba Ramdev) titled “Godman to Tycoon – The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev” by Priyanka Pathak Narain. Such book had been previously restrained from being published by the Delhi High Court which held that it contained prima-facie defamatory content on Baba Ramdev. The petitioners, Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., asked the court to issue a global take down order for the defamatory content in question to Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter and other Internet intermediaries. The Internet platforms removed the content from their India-specific domains, but refused to remove it globally.
Arguments from the Petitioners
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the petitioners contended that once a court had ordered content to be taken off, it was bound to be removed globally. They supported their contentions in India’s Information Technology Act (IT Act, 2000), particularly on the definitions of computer resource, computer system, and computer network. The petitioners also argued that details of the users who had uploaded the content weren’t specific enough for them to identify the individuals and reach out to them for taking down the videos.
Arguments from the Defendants
The Internet platforms on the other hand argued that what constitutes defamation differs from country to country and passing a global take down order would be contrary to national sovereignty and international comity, resulting in conflicts of laws. Since public interest varies from country to country, Indian Courts definition of public interest and standards of speech shall not be imposed internationally. They also argued that dissemination of views on the Internet is essential to freedom of speech and expression. Although Sec. 75 of the IT Act provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction, such jurisdiction shall be limited to contraventions and offences under the IT Act and shall not extend to defamation. The platforms contended that the High Court’s order should be proportionate to the alleged harm and, therefore, geo-blocking of content specific to India should be enough to give relief to petitioners.
The Court’s Order
The Court held that once content was uploaded from an IP address within India and was made available globally, the removal of such content must also be worldwide. Therefore, the Court ordered the intermediaries to take down the content globally if it was uploaded from India.
The Court’s reasoning lies in the interpretation of Sec. 79(3)(b) of the IT Act along with the definitions of computer resource, computer system, and computer network. The Court states in its order that according to such provisions, intermediaries are required to remove content from their platforms once ordered by a competent court. Such content shall be removed from the “computer resource” controlled by the intermediary. Since the definition of “computer resource” includes the “computer network”, which isn’t defined as merely a single computer but can include a network of computers (including a global computer network), the content must be taken off globally. The Court held that any other interpretation would not give full effect to the intent of the IT Act or the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal. Based on an interpretation of Sec. 75 of the IT Act, as soon as certain content was uploaded from India and was made available globally, Indian courts attained jurisdiction for such content to be removed, not just from Indian domains, but globally. Finally, the Court stated that once removal was ordered, it needed to be complete and not partial in nature. Geo-blocking could be easily circumnavigated by using VPN services, thus rendering the protection given to the defendants insufficient.
The Delhi High Court has admitted Defendants’ appeal to the aforementioned order.