- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sabu Mathew George Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India & Ors. (S)
Factual and Procedural Background
On 18 August 2015 the Court recorded that, despite an earlier interim order prohibiting certain advertisements, the petitioner alleged the ads were still appearing on the platforms operated by Google India, Yahoo! India and Microsoft (I) Pvt. Ltd. An affidavit to that effect was filed by the petitioner on 14 August 2015. The respondents sought two weeks to respond.
The petitioner also pointed to a prior direction dated 12 May 2015 requiring the Court’s order to be displayed on the “policy page” and pressed that it should instead appear on the “Home page” to give an effective public warning. The Court granted time for responses and directed the Union of India as well as the private respondents to file affidavits.
Pursuant to those directions, the Union of India filed an affidavit and some private respondents followed suit. The remaining respondents were ordered to file by 08 July 2016. The Court further noted that the respondents, as intermediaries, could not host content that violates Indian law. The Solicitor General undertook to convene a meeting between government experts, the respondents’ technical teams and the petitioner within ten days, with a memorandum of proposed steps to follow. The matter is next listed for 25 July 2016.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether online intermediaries (Google India, Yahoo! India and Microsoft (I) Pvt. Ltd.) may allow or display content that violates Indian law despite an interim judicial order.
- Whether the Court’s directive should be displayed on the platforms’ “Home page” rather than merely on the “policy page” to ensure adequate public notice.
- What procedural and technical measures should be adopted, in coordination with the Union of India, to prevent future violations through search engines.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Advertisements prohibited by the Court’s interim order continued to appear on the respondents’ platforms.
- Displaying the Court’s order only on a “policy page” is ineffective; it must be placed on the “Home page” to serve as a real warning to users.
Respondents' Arguments
- Requested additional time to file responses to the petitioner’s affidavit.
- Indicated willingness to participate in a meeting with government technical experts to devise compliance measures.
Union of India's Position
- Committed to convene a meeting within ten days between its experts, the respondents’ technical teams and the petitioner.
- Agreed to file an affidavit addressing the petitioner’s allegations and proposed compliance steps.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reaffirmed that intermediaries cannot shelter behind their status to disseminate material that infringes Indian legislation. Recognising that effective enforcement requires both legal directives and technical solutions, the Court ordered a collaborative meeting among governmental and private-sector experts, with the petitioner’s participation, to devise mechanisms ensuring that no unlawful content passes through the search engines. It maintained procedural discipline by setting clear timelines: outstanding affidavits must be filed by 08 July 2016, and a memorandum outlining proposed steps must be submitted before the next hearing. By doing so, the Court sought to balance due process—allowing the respondents to be heard—with the imperative of immediate compliance with its interim injunction.
Holding and Implications
INTERIM DIRECTIONS ISSUED; MATTER LISTED FOR 25 JULY 2016
Direct consequences include: (1) remaining respondents must file affidavits by 08 July 2016; (2) the Union of India must convene a technical meeting within ten days and file a memorandum of proposed safeguards; and (3) the respondents are bound not to permit any content that violates Indian law. The order is interlocutory and sets no new precedent, but it underscores judicial insistence that online intermediaries ensure compliance with domestic legislation.
1. On 18 August, 2015, this Court had passed the following order:
“It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he has filed an affidavit on 14 August, 2015, ascertaining that despite the interim order passed by this Court that there should not be any advertisement by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the advertisement is still carried on.
Mr. Shyam Divan and Mr. K.V Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, pray for two weeks' time to file response to the said affidavit. Prayer stands allowed.
At this stage, Mr. Sanjay Parikh has drawn our attention to a part of the order dated 12 May, 2015, which reads as follows:
“Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that vide order dated 28 January, 2015, this Court had directed to reflect the said order on the “policy page” as also on the page containing “terms and conditions of service”, but the “policy page” does not sub-serve the purpose and, therefore, it should be put on the “Home page”. Learned counsel for the respondents pray for some time to file response to the same. Be it noted, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel, has submitted with immense concern that when it is reflected in the “Home page”, there is a real warning, but when it is mentioned in the “policy page”, it does not really come within the public domain as is expected.”
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, shall file an affidavit of the competent authority in that regard, in addition to the substantive affidavit that is required to be filed by the Union of India with regard to the affidavit filed on 14 August, 2015, by the petitioner. The contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 5 shall also file their respective affidavits in that regard.”
2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Union of India has filed an affidavit. We have been apprised that some of the respondents have also filed their affidavits. The respondents who have not filed the affidavits shall positively file the same by 08.7.2016
3. There can be no dispute that the respondents, namely, Google India, Yahoo ! India and Microsoft (I) Pvt. Ltd. cannot, in the name of intermediaries, cannot put anything that violates the laws of this country.
4. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India submits that the Union of India would convene a meeting with the technical experts of the respondents along with the experts of the Department within ten days hence. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to attend the meeting on the date and time fixed by the competent authority of the Union of India. As agreed to by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the petitioner shall also be invited to give his suggestions. A memorandum shall be filed before this Court indicating the steps to be taken so that nothing goes through the search engines that violates any legislation.
5. Let the matter be listed on 25.07.2016
Alert