High Court seeks response from L-G, Centre in plea authorising Delhi Police to block online content
The notification was issued by the L-G in December last year.
The challenge comes even as the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre under the Ministry of Home Affairs told the Delhi High Court on April 29 that it is in the process of integrating the Application Programming Interface (API) with around 1,100 entities, including internet service providers, social media intermediaries and telecom network providers on its Sahyog portal.
With the API integration with the IT intermediaries and other entities on the cyberspace, any request for a takedown raised by a law enforcement agency, will automatically be pulled down in real-time without any human intervention.
For example, the moment a law enforcement agency (LEA) puts a request on the portal for takedown of content, the platform, if its API is already integrated with Sahyog, will take down the content immediately. This will also empower local police stations to order for take down of content. According to a source, over 15,000 LEAs are now onboarded on the portal.
The Sahyog portal, launched in 2024, is aimed at expediting the process of sending notices to IT intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agency under Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link with an objective to curtail/detect unlawful/criminal act.
The provision of Section 79(3)(b), part of the safe harbour provision, requires that a content flagged as unlawful by the government or its agency, has to be taken down first whereafter any grievance or appeal is entertained.
In the petition filed by Software Freedom Law Center India (SFLC.in) through its advocate Musheer Zaidi, the constitutional validity of the notification has been challenged, submitting that the same is without the authority of law, and adds that the IT Act 'does not envisage the creation or functioning of any nodal agency' in the manner as has been done through the notification.
SFLC India has contended that such appointment of members of the police as a nodal agency and delegation of authority to law enforcement agencies, without necessary safeguards 'results in unbridled discretion and opens the door for unchecked censorship.'
On December 26, 2024, the Home department of the Delhi government issued a gazette notification designating the Delhi Police as the nodal agency for performing functions under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000.
The notification also appointed Joint Commissioner of Police, IFSO (Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations), Special Cell as state nodal officer, DCP IFSO as he assistant state nodal officer, and DCP of districts, IFSO, EOW, Crime, Special Cell, Special Branch, IGIA, Railways and Metro as designated officers for issuing takedown notice pertaining to cases reported in their respective jurisdictions and for notifying instances of unlawful act online.
Seeking quashing of the notification, SFLC.in has argued in its plea that Section 69A of IT Act already establishes the procedure for blocking access to information.
It has also argued that IT Act Section 79 (3)(b) 'explicitly establishes that only a notification by the appropriate Government or its agency can be considered for the issuance of takedown orders,' and the L-G, 'even while acting as the so-called 'nodal agency,' cannot unilaterally declare the authority of the Delhi Police to be the 'appropriate government or its agency' for the purposes of issuing such orders.'
The petitioner has further submitted that 'allowing them to issue takedown notices without judicial oversight could lead to arbitrary actions, infringing upon the due process of law.'
Issuing notice on Wednesday, the bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela kept the matter next for consideration on September 17.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Delhi HC dismisses plea by actor Jacqueline Fernandez to quash money-laundering case against her
The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed Hindi film actor Jacqueline Fernandez's petition seeking to quash a Rs 200 crore money laundering case linked to conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, Live Law reported. The actor had moved court seeking to quash the Enforcement Directorate's case against her, along with a second supplementary chargesheet that names her as the tenth accused. In her plea, Fernandez claimed that she was a victim of Chandrasekhar's 'maliciously targeted attack'. 'There is absolutely no indication she had any involvement whatsoever in aiding him to launder his purportedly ill-gotten wealth,' the legal news outlet quoted the plea as saying. The petition said that in view of this, she could not be prosecuted for alleged money laundering. Fernandez's plea also stated that the Enforcement Directorate had acknowledged that Tihar Jail officials gave Chandrasekhar unrestricted access to mobile phones and other technology, which he allegedly used to deceive the original complainant and several film artists, including herself. The plea further argued that since the agency had already recorded her statement as a prosecution witness in the original fraud case, continuing proceedings against her in the money laundering case was unjustified. In the money laundering case, Chandrashekhar is accused of extorting around Rs 215 crore from Shivinder Singh, a former promoter of pharmaceutical giant Ranbaxy, and his wife Aditi Singh. Chandrashekhar had allegedly impersonated the Union home secretary, law secretary and an officer in the prime minister's office while speaking to them. On August 7, 2022, Chandrashekhar was arrested by the Delhi Police. The Enforcement Directorate is also investigating the allegations that Chandrashekhar used funds gained by cheating and extorting high-profile individuals to buy gifts for Fernandez. The agency had named the actor in a supplementary chargesheet in the case. The supplementary chargesheet alleged that Chandrashekhar gave gifts worth Rs 5.71 crore to Fernandez from the proceeds of crime generated by criminal activities, including extortion. The investigating agency also claimed that Fernandez was aware that the gifts given to her were the proceeds of crime.
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
Karnataka's fake news bill won't survive a court challenge
The bill deprives social media intermediaries of their statutory immunity from state persecution for user-generated content, a legal protection commonly referred to in internet law as 'safe harbour'. India's nodal Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) provides for safe harbour protections and allows social media companies to host user content with conditional immunity, within a clearly defined legal framework. In contrast, Karnataka's fake news bill proposes to hold social media companies accountable for violating any provision of the proposed law. Karnataka's proposed Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, is poorly drafted and replete with structural infirmities. It is also at odds with existing central laws and its constitutional validity is questionable. Let's see how. The bill envisions a government-appointed Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority, with sweeping powers to preemptively block or ban content it deems illegal. However, it does not clarify how these powers will sync with the safe harbour protections under the IT Act. Without safe harbour protections, social media companies could face a deluge of criminal penalties for content that is difficult to monitor and filter, such as superstitions or unscientific claims, both deemed illegal under the bill. The Authority's blocking powers create a parallel mechanism to the content-blocking procedures already prescribed under the Centre's IT Act. The lack of standard procedural safeguards, such as the need to notify penalised parties or offer them a fair hearing, further disregards the minimum standards set by the IT Act. That law limits content blocking to specific grounds such as public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or preventing incitement to an offence — all of which correspond to the restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Also read: Karnataka's new misinformation bill can penalise social media users for honest mistakes Constitutionality in question Lawmaking in India seems stuck in a time loop: each new attempt to regulate online misinformation repeats old constitutional mistakes. In the past two years, multiple well-intentioned policy interventions have tried to crack the whip on misleading online speech – including the now-withdrawn Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, the Fact Check Unit under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, state-funded media monitoring centres in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab, and even the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2024. Most constitutional law experts agree that these efforts exceed the permissible restrictions on speech by allowing the state to become the arbiter of truth. The Bombay High Court struck down the IT Rules provision that empowered the Union government to set up a Fact Check Unit. The court ruled that the provision was unconstitutionally vague, exceeded the limits enshrined under Article 19(2), and had a chilling effect on free speech. The Supreme Court of India has also clearly held that free speech may not be restricted on grounds beyond those enumerated in Article 19(2). Restricting speech simply because it is labelled 'fake news' creates confusion among users and social media companies alike, given the broad range of content that could fall under this rubric, from satire to critical reporting on government policy. Any law that restricts misleading speech must be proportionate to be considered constitutional. The definitions of 'fake news' and 'misinformation' in the Karnataka bill are vague, constitute an overreach, and exceed the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2). For instance, speech can be categorised as 'misinformation' if it is 'prejudicial to public health', a restriction not recognised under the Constitution. The enforcement powers granted to the Authority allow it to judge whether speech is 'disrespectful to Sanatan Dharma', 'unscientific', or 'superstitious'. These catchall and subjective limitations are constitutionally fraught and leave room for government misuse, as well as preventative hyper removal by intermediaries seeking to avoid liability. Also read: Draft DPDP Rules see no difference between India's allies and adversaries on data transfer Lack of independence The functional independence and competence of the proposed Authority are also in question. The bill allows the Karnataka government to constitute the six-member Authority. Its composition includes the Minister for Kannada and Culture, two members from the state legislature, two representatives from social media companies, and one civil servant. This means that a body with sweeping powers to block content critical of the government will be entirely appointed by the executive. It will act as the judge, jury, and enforcer, with no institutional safeguards like fixed tenure, protected salary, or minimum judicial qualifications, which usually guarantee the independence of any regulator. The lack of judicial representation further undermines the Authority's legal prowess to adjudicate what constitutes illegal content. The Karnataka government's concerns about regulating misleading speech may be genuine, but the heavy-handed approach adopted in this bill does not seem to pass constitutional muster. A fixation on penalising false speech or 'fake news' in toto won't survive legal challenge. It is time lawmakers in India realise that the problem of misleading speech cannot be solved through isolated, punitive measures. Instead, the government should focus on building collaborative frameworks with digital intermediaries, who have limited capacities to identify and moderate illegal content amidst the avalanche of posts on their platforms. For instance, YouTube's Priority Flagger Program allows governments and non-governmental organisations to flag potentially illegal content for expedited review. Such models ensure a steady stream of flagged content while preserving procedural fairness and constitutional safeguards. Measures like these should be explored to ensure any restriction on a fundamental right remains within constitutional bounds. The author works at Koan Advisory Group, a technology policy consulting firm. Views are personal. This article is part of ThePrint-Koan Advisory series that analyses emerging policies, laws and regulations in India's technology sector. Read all the articles here. (Edited by Prashant)
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
'Deliberately Varied Facts To Mislead Probe': Delhi HC Raps Jacqueline Fernandez In PMLA Case
The Delhi High Court rejected the plea by Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of a money laundering case against her. In a major setback for actress Jacqueline Fernandez, the Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to quash the money laundering case against her, observing that she 'deliberately varied" the facts to mislead the investigation. The court accepted the ED's acquisition against her regarding concealing the receipt of proceeds of crime. The petition was moved by Fernandez in connection with Rs 200 crore money laundering case. She had challenged the chargesheet filed against her in the case, in which Sukesh Chandrasekhar is also an accused. She was also named as an accused in the case. She was booked in the case on the allegations that she had received expensive gifts from Chandrasekhar. In the order rejecting her plea, the court has made serious observations on her conduct. 'The statements reveal that petitioner deliberately varied the narration of facts to mislead the investigation. She initially denied knowing the actual name of Sukesh, which, later on, upon being confronted with evidence, was admitted by her," the court said. The court also noted the ED's submissions regarding 'piecemeal disclosures' by the actress during investigation. 'Response of ED's counsel to the defence taken by accused that she 'did not know" was essentially based on Section 3(i) of PMLA. The elements which constitute an offence under Section 3 of PMLA have been slated to be is junctive as per the Explanation. These elements are: concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting it as untainted property and claiming it as untainted property. He contended that possession of articles given by Sukesh were not disputed. He contended that it is evident that there was concealment by petitioner since there were piecemeal disclosures," the court order said. 'The issue of projecting it as untainted property was also evident, since petitioner did not disclose various gifts given to her and her family in one go, but only during further investigation and interrogation," it added. The ED alleged that Fernandez initially denied facts, but later admitted after being confronted. The central agency also alleged that she wiped out data from her phone to hide evidence. The High Court said that the questions of her knowledge and intent will be decided in trial. The case will be proceeded under money laundering charges.
