![[NDPS ACT] Delhi High Court Grants Parole of Three Weeks](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/delhi-high-court-1.jpg?fit=820%2C461&ssl=1)
The Delhi HC acknowledged Google’s position but expressed concerns regarding its implications for the ongoing legal process. In response, the Court evaluated two potential solutions: issuing Letters Rogatory through governmental channels or directing Google Ireland to adhere to GDPR requirements through Irish Courts. This strategic consideration reflects the Court’s commitment to addressing challenges in cross-border legal matters while upholding procedural integrity.
Delhi: Recently, the legal dispute surrounding alleged defamation of the milk brand Amul on social media, the Delhi HC is contemplating the issuance of letters rogatory to Ireland via the Central Government. The object behind to get the crucial information regarding a YouTube channel accused of tarnishing Amul’s reputation.
Read Also: Supreme Court Questions Income-Tax Department’s Delay in Bharti Airtel Appeal
Letters rogatory, also known as letters of request, serve as formal requests from one court to a foreign court for judicial assistance, emphasizing the international scope of this legal maneuver.
The case in question, Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr v. Sujay Kumar & Ors, has been under the investigation since 2021. According to reports, the recent proceedings overseen by Justice Anish Dayal delved into the complexities of obtaining pertinent data from the YouTube channel ‘WIDEOPEN’, whose identity has remained elusive.
Read Also: Supreme Court on Surrogacy and Marriage: India’s Norms in Focus
Despite previous injunctions against disparaging content posted by various defendants, the trial’s progress has been hindered by the undisclosed identity of defendant No. 5, associated with the YouTube channel.
YouTube’s parent company Google has cited the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as grounds for refusing to disclose information related to the channel. According to Google, the data falls under the purview of GDPR due to its operations in Ireland.
Acknowledging Google’s view, the Court expressed concerns over the obstruction it posed to the judicial process. It deliberated on two potential avenues to obtain the necessary information: issuing letters rogatory through the government or directing Google Ireland to seek appropriate orders from Irish courts regarding GDPR obligations.
During the proceedings, the counsel representing the Central government highlighted the expediency of letters rogatory as a diplomatic communication that might not necessitate a directive from Irish Courts.
Consequently, the Court permitted Google Ireland to file a response regarding this option, allowing the plaintiff to rebut the response before the next hearing.
In a related observation, Justice Dayal observed the importance of ensuring that plaintiffs are not deprived of remedies due to data protection laws in foreign jurisdictions. This observation of the Court’s commitment to upholding the rights of aggrieved parties amidst legal battle.