A PIL before the Supreme Court seeks an independent judicial commission to frame constitutional safeguards against online misinformation. Filed under Article 32, the plea highlights risks from algorithm-driven content amplification, viral fake narratives and children’s social media access, arguing that existing laws lag behind digital challenges.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that photographing an exam question paper and sharing it on WhatsApp does not amount to an offence under Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000. The Court said such conduct may be misconduct but not a privacy violation involving private images.
The Supreme Court of India asked Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to examine a PIL seeking mechanisms for recovery or destruction of Indians’ stolen personal data allegedly stored on foreign servers amid rising concerns over cybercrime and sensitive information misuse.
The Supreme Court disposed of Meta and WhatsApp’s stay pleas after they agreed to comply with NCLAT directions by March 16. The Bench said the privacy policy will still be examined by CCI, with the matter listed for further hearing.
The Jharkhand High Court granted divorce to a woman subjected to repeated humiliation by her husband and in-laws over photographs from a relationship predating her marriage. The Bench found the husband accessed her Google Drive and shared objectionable images.
The Delhi High Court held that an acquitted or discharged person’s right to dignity and reputation under Article 21 can override press freedom under Article 19(1)(a). The Court upheld de-indexing of arrest-related news articles, noting that continued online availability causes lasting reputational harm.
In a landmark order, a Delhi court directed Google and major media houses to de-index articles linking a man to an ED case after he was fully cleared. The court said continued online presence of such reports harms dignity and serves no public interest.
Madras High Court tells Centre to act with same urgency as Operation Sindoor to block websites sharing women’s private content. Says women’s dignity is as vital as national integrity.
The Madras High Court criticised the Centre for making a woman cybercrime victim watch objectionable videos with seven male officers. “Does it not amount to violating her right to dignity?” the court asked while directing corrective action.
