The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court ruling that Rule 10 of the Information Technology Rules, 2009 does not empower a Magistrate to order blocking of online content, holding that no inherent jurisdiction exists to issue such directions.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court opted not to challenge a Bombay High Court ruling stating that Rule 10 of the Information Technology Rules, 2009 does not grant a Magistrate the authority to order the blocking of online content.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, emphasized that a Magistrate lacks inherent powers under the law to issue such orders.
The Bench commented,
“Inherent power is not there in the Magistrate. There is absolutely no jurisdiction. He just cannot pass blocking order. Why are you flagging a dead horse?”
The Justices noted that the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), presented a chance to align the powers of Magistrates with those of civil judges, but this opportunity was not taken.
They remarked.
“BNSS had the wonderful opportunity to put the Magistrate on par with the civil judge but it was not done. So what can we do?”
The Court was reviewing an appeal filed by Dhyan Foundation, a charitable NGO focused on animal welfare, against Google. The foundation appealed the Bombay High Court’s December 2025 ruling.
The NGO sought action against five alleged defamatory videos on YouTube, initially turning to the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Mumbai for an order to prevent Google from disseminating the content.
When Google did not comply, the NGO pursued contempt proceedings, which the Magistrate responded to. Google then contested this in the sessions court, concurrently requesting a condonation of the delay.
The Sessions Court accepted the 116-day delay and halted the contempt proceedings, prompting Dhyan Foundation to challenge both rulings in the Bombay High Court.
Google asserted that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act only empowers the Central government or designated officials to block online content for specific reasons, such as safeguarding national sovereignty and security.
The High Court indicated that there was a strong indication that the Magistrate might have overstepped his authority. It expressed concern that blocking access to materials in the public domain could hinder individuals’ freedom of speech and the public’s right to information, noting that such actions must be based on clear legal guidelines with adequate safeguards.
The High Court supported the sessions court’s stay on contempt proceedings against Google, finding merit in the jurisdictional issue.
Regarding the sessions court’s decision to condone the delay, the NGO contended that bureaucratic challenges in a large corporation do not amount to sufficient cause. However, the High Court dismissed this argument, asserting that courts should prioritize addressing the merits of cases rather than dwelling on technicalities.
It also found that Google’s justification was reasonable and chose not to interfere with the lower court’s decision on the delay.
This led to the Supreme Court appeal, where the Court declined to intervene with the High Court’s ruling and advised Dhyan Foundation to seek an injunction from a civil court.
The Bench stated,
“Please go to the civil court and get an injunction,”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra on behalf of the NGO remarked,
“When links are disabled here, it is available overseas,”
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Google, noted that despite the Magistrate lacking jurisdiction, the platform removed all links except one.
Ponda said.
“Even though the Magistrate passed the order without jurisdiction, we removed all within 36 hours. Only one foreign link is remaining,”
After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court opted not to intervene.
Case Title: Dhyan Foundation v. Google LLC & Anr.