The Delhi High Court rejected a plea compelling social media giants to disclose officers’ details for cybersecurity coordination, citing a lack of basis. The court highlighted existing rules not mandating officer details’ publication and noted the effectiveness of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court has declined to issue directions to social media giants Facebook, Google, and the formerly known X (previously Twitter) regarding the disclosure or publication of details of their ‘designated officers.’
These officers play a crucial role in coordinating with the Central government, police, and security agencies to address issues related to national security, cyber-crimes, and crimes against children. The decision came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by former RSS ideologue KN Govindacharya against the Union of India and others [KN Govindacharya v Union of India and Ors].
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora emphasized that the petitioner’s prayers lacked a basis, asserting that the ‘designated officers’ appointed by intermediaries are meant to interact solely with their counterparts appointed by the Central government. The court highlighted that the government had not raised any grievances in this regard.
The court also took note of Rule 13 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (IT Rules 2009), which does not mandate intermediaries to publish details of their designated officers. The petitioner failed to establish a case warranting such a direction, according to the court.
“There is no grievance raised before this Court by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, i.e., Union of India, that the Intermediaries have failed to comply with their obligation under Rule 13 of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Therefore, in view of the fact that the officer appointed by an Intermediary under Rule 13 of Rules of 2009 is not required to interact with the general public, we find no merit in the directions sought by the Petitioner in this PIL for publishing their names in the public domain,”
-observed the court.
The court further expressed the opinion that the petitioner’s concerns were addressed with the notification and implementation of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021).
ALSO READ: Gujarat High Court Directs NCLT Ban on Electronic Devices During Hearings
“With the appointment of the Grievance Officer by the Intermediary under Rule 3(2) and the setting up of the Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2021, the members of the general public have access to a robust grievance redressal mechanism in case of circulation of any news or posts, which are liable to be regulated under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Rules of 2021,”
-the court noted.
The PIL, filed by KN Govindacharya, argued that disclosing details of intermediaries officers would significantly aid law enforcement agencies in tackling the increasing number of cyber-crimes against minors and addressing national security concerns.
Facebook, one of the respondents, informed the court that, in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules of 2009, it has appointed an officer to handle directions from the Central government. The company clarified that this officer does not engage with the public at large and that it consistently manages directions from the government without any complaints.
ALSO READ: Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Urgent Hearing Plea from Center Regarding the Farmer’s Protest
After considering the arguments presented, the court dismissed the plea, concluding that no further directions were necessary.
Advocates Virag Gupta, Vishal Arun Mishra, Harshita Nigam, and Umang Mangal represented the petitioner, while Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Anurag Ahluwalia appeared for the Union of India. Advocates Tejas Karia, Varun Pathak, Amee Rana, Thejesh Rajendran, and Akhil Shandilya represented Facebook.
