(2018) 15 SCC 558
Order dated 27-2-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
1. A letter dated 18-2-2015 was addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India by Prajwala, an organisation based in the old city of Hyderabad. The letter was handed over to one of us by the office of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. On reading the letter, it is quite clear that an issue of great public importance has been raised. Accordingly, suo motu petition has been registered based on the contents of the letter.
2. Ms Aparna Bhat, learned counsel appears on behalf of Prajwala and she submits that she will file a detailed petition giving suggestions with regard to the issues raised in the letter.
3. The letter states that the General Secretary of Prajwala came to learn of two videos, one of which is 4.5 minutes long wherein one man is raping a girl and another is recording the incident. This incident appears to have occurred somewhere in Delhi-Uttar Pradesh. The second video is about 8.5 minutes long and is of a gang rape wherein five men were seen raping a very young woman. The second video is from some “Bengali like speaking region”. It is further stated in the letter that apart from the fact that the incidents of rape and gang rape were video recorded, to make matters worse, they have been distributed through WhatsApp.
4. When Prajwala learnt of the videos, a nationwide campaign Shame The Rapist was launched on 5-2-2015 exposing the faces of the rapists (1 + 5) and requesting the nation to help trace the culprits. It is stated that the campaign has gone viral with thousands of people joining the campaign and one of the results of the campaign was that it has come to notice that there are certain websites which cater only to pornographic videos of sexual violence. These websites have been mentioned in the letter sent by Prajwala.
5. In the opinion of Prajwala, the incidents indicate that the offence of rape is committed with impunity and the offender even has the audacity to flaunt the incident in the public domain through a video recording. This has a negative impact on the criminal justice system and also makes it difficult for the common people to report such matters to law enforcement agencies.
6. Prajwala has made six suggestions in the letter. These are:
(i) A CBI probe into all such videos with the findings being made public;
(ii) Setting up of a Task Force on Sexual Crimes. The Task Force should be set up within the Ministry of Home Affairs and should also focus on technology driven sexual crimes.
(iii) A public friendly mechanism to report such videos. It is suggested that a mechanism could be evolved to have a secure email Id and also a toll free number which will enable citizens to report such crimes without any threat perception.
(iv) A National Sex Offenders Register of convicted sex offenders. This will be more in the nature of a Registry which will give publicity to the sex offenders which could include those indulging in eve-teasing, molesters, stalkers and rapists and other similar offenders.
(v) Tie-up of the Ministry of Home Affairs with YouTube and WhatsApp so that dissemination of offensive videos and material relating to sexual crimes is curbed and penal action taken against the offenders.
(vi) Specialised training of senior law enforcers on issues relating to sexual crimes and cyber space and other use of technology to tackle concerns from social media and other technology enabled applications such as WhatsApp and YouTube.
Attached with the letter is a pen drive with videos received by Prajwala and DVDs of the videos. The Registry should keep the pen drive and DVDs in a sealed cover.
7. On the basis of the contents of the letter, it is quite clear that the issues raised are extremely serious and are of great public concern.
8. Under the circumstances, we issue notice to the States of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Odisha and the NCT of Delhi. The notice may be served through the Chief Secretary of the States and the NCT of Delhi and also through the Director General of Police in the States and the Commissioner of Police in Delhi.
9. The Government of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology are necessary parties, particularly in view of the suggestions that have been made in the letter. Accordingly, notice may also be issued to the Government of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.
10. We have been informed by the learned counsel that subsequent to the social media campaign ShameTheRapist, the vehicle of the General Secretary of Prajwala was attacked in Hyderabad (Telangana). It is also, therefore, necessary to issue notice to the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police in the State of Telangana.
11. We have also been informed by Ms Aparna Bhat that no significant progress seems to have been made in apprehending the rapists or those who attacked the vehicle of the General Secretary of Prajwala. We expect the police forces in the States concerned and NCT of Delhi to take urgent and immediate action to identify and apprehend the culprits.
12. Since the first suggestion made by Prajwala is for a CBI probe into all such videos, notice may also be issued to the Director, CBI to immediately register a crime and to start investigations with immediate effect. Ms Aparna Bhat states that she will, if possible, make additional copies of the pen drive and DVDs and supply them directly to the Director of CBI. She further states that in case she is not able to do so, the pen drive and DVDs copies of which are already available with the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India may be transmitted by the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Director, CBI for necessary action and to commence investigations or collected by the Investigating Officer from the said Secretary. Given the seriousness of the issues raised, we expect all authorities/officials to effectively cooperate with one another.
13. Ms Aparna Bhat submits that she will file the detailed petition on 9-3-2015.
14. List the matter on 13-3-2015.
(2018) 15 SCC 560
Order dated 13-3-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
15. We have heard Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General. We have requested the learned Additional Solicitor General to inform us on the next date of hearing about the steps taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs between 10-2-2015 when the email giving information about the culprits and the DVDs and pen drive along with a detailed letter was given to the Ministry of Home Affairs by Prajwala and when they were handed over to CBI along with a covering letter on 5-3-2015. We would like to know why it took such a long time for the Ministry to react to the information supplied by the petitioner.
16. We have been told by the learned Additional Solicitor General that after receipt of the DVD and the pen drive by CBI, it was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to check the authenticity of the recording. A report has been received from the Forensic Science Laboratory and now a request has been made to give clear pictures of the culprits involved in the crime. It is stated that as soon as clear pictures of the culprits are made available, they will be shared with the Director General of Police in Uttar Pradesh, Odisha and West Bengal (and other States if necessary) for publication so that whoever has any information about the culprits can pass it on to CBI or the authorities concerned for the purpose of their identification. Similar steps will also be taken with regard to the Commissioner of Police in Delhi. We would expect the Director General of Police in Uttar Pradesh, Odisha and West Bengal as also the Commissioner of Police in Delhi to cooperate and coordinate efforts with CBI. Publication may be made in such of the States where CBI expects the culprits to be found.
17. In the meanwhile, CBI should also inform us on the next date of hearing about the progress made to ascertain who uploaded the clips on the internet and the investigative steps taken in this regard. The status report may be filed well before the next date of hearing.
18. We must express our anguish that in spite of service, there is no appearance on behalf of the State of Odisha despite the fact that the case is of considerable importance. Due to non-appearance on behalf of the State of Odisha, we impose costs of Rs 50,000 to be paid by the State of Odisha to the petitioner within one week from today.
19. The vehicle of the General Secretary of the Prajwala was damaged in Hyderabad (Telangana). We are told that the police in Telangana is looking into the matter and that a crime has been registered, but absolutely no particulars are made available to this Court. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the police authorities in Telangana are also taking the matter very casually, we impose # cost of Rs 25,000 to be paid by the State of Telangana to the petitioner within one week from today.
20. We have been told by the learned Additional Solicitor General that CBI has already registered eight regular cases and one preliminary enquiry and investigations are in progress. List the matter on 20-3-2015.
(2018) 15 SCC 561
Order dated 20-3-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
21. Pursuant to our order dated 13-3-2015, CBI has filed a status report in a sealed cover which we have received in Court today and have gone through the contents thereof. From the status report, it is quite clear that in fact 12 video clips were received out of which three of them were repetitive. Effectively, nine video clips were received by CBI. CBI has since registered eight regular cases and one preliminary enquiry on 12-3-2015.
22. With regard to six regular cases registered by CBI, investigations are going on and the photographs of the culprits have already been shared/being shared with the Director General of Police of all the States, the National Crime Records Bureau, the State Crime Records Bureau, CBI Home Page, Doordarshan and National/Regional dailies. Apart from this, CBI has also announced a reward of Rs 1,00,000 for providing information leading to the identification/apprehension of each suspect.
23. It is further stated in the status report that with regard to RC No. 7, the suspects have been identified by the State police and an FIR was registered by the State police. The suspects were arrested and were subsequently granted bail. We direct transfer of this case being Crime/FIR No. 323 of 2015 registered in Sadar Police Station, Sitapur for further investigations to CBI.
24. Mr Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh has no objection in transfer of this case to CBI. He further states that the State police will extend all necessary cooperation to CBI in the investigations.
25. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that about three months' time is required to complete the investigations in this case. We make it clear that CBI is entitled to carry out any further investigations and to file a report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
26. As regards, RC No. 6, it is stated that the possible suspects have been identified and necessary steps are being taken to apprehend them. With regard to the preliminary enquiry, it is stated that the offence appears to have been committed outside India and the accused has perhaps been sentenced to imprisonment. Steps are being taken by CBI to confirm this.
27. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's statement has not yet been recorded in the matter. The learned Additional Solicitor General has taken note of this submission and will discuss the matter further with the investigating officer in CBI. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the victims have been identified, their statements may be recorded with the assistance of the qualified social workers or counsellors, as the case may be, and/or medical professionals.
28. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also taken note of this and will pass on this submission to the investigating officer in CBI who will take necessary steps in this regard, as advised.
29. It is also brought to our notice that on the question of identifying the person or persons who have uploaded the video clips, the matter has been referred to the Computer Emergency Response Team — India and necessary steps are being taken to nominate a nodal officer in this regard. “Google” has also been requested to assist in the identification of the persons who have uploaded the video clips.
30. It is submitted that some sites have already been blocked at the instance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The learned Additional Solicitor General submits that a detailed affidavit will be filed in this regard within one week.
31. Insofar as the investigations by CBI are concerned, three months' time is granted to them to carry out the investigations. However, a status report should be filed after four weeks.
32. As far as the State of Telangana is concerned, the affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and it appears that immediate steps were taken as soon as the complaints were received from the petitioner. We are satisfied with the investigations that have been made by the local police although the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no progress has been made in the investigation.
33. Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that investigations are still in progress. It may take some time to complete the investigations. Looking to the steps already taken by the police and the State of Telangana, the costs awarded by this Court by the order dated 13-3-2015 are waived. On the next date of hearing, the State of Telangana will also inform us about the progress made in the investigations.
34. In spite of our earlier order dated 13-3-2015, there is still no one present on behalf of the State of Odisha. Costs have also not been deposited. We cannot appreciate this total lack of concern by the State of Odisha. Accordingly, we direct the presence of the Chief Secretary of the State of Odisha on the next date of hearing.
35. List the matter on 10-4-2015. The Registry should send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the State of Odisha and the Standing Counsel for the State of Odisha forthwith.
(2018) 15 SCC 563
Order dated 10-4-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
36. The Chief Secretary of the State of Odisha is present in the Court today. Mr L. Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Odisha has advised the Chief Secretary to take certain remedial steps. No further orders are required to be passed in this regard. Further appearance of the Chief Secretary is dispensed with.
37. The Ministry of Home Affairs has filed an incomplete affidavit. Mr Maninder Singh, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Ministry seeks leave to withdraw the affidavit and file an appropriate affidavit. Leave and liberty granted.
38. The State of Telangana has filed its affidavit. It appears that investigations are in progress and the State Police is taking up the matter with due seriousness. Under the circumstances, insofar as the investigations into the attack on the vehicle of the General Secretary of the petitioner organisation is concerned, no further directions are required to be given to the State of Telangana and they are accordingly discharged insofar as this is concerned. However, the investigations should continue.
39. List the matter on 24-7-2015.
(2018) 15 SCC 564 (1)
Order dated 24-7-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
40. Ms Sunitha Krishnan appearing on behalf of Prajwala says that she has gone through the affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs and she would like to file some suggestions. She may do so in the form of a Note.
41. List the matter on 28-8-2015.
(2018) 15 SCC 564 (2)
Order dated 21-11-2016
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
42. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to an affidavit filed by CBI/Respondent 8 on 8-10-2015. She submits that CBI has some very valuable suggestions which need to be considered and appropriate orders passed thereon.
43. Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated 4-12-2015. The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that pursuant to the order dated 4-12-2015, an affidavit sworn by Mr Vedantam Giri, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs was filed on 4-12-2015.
44. We have gone through the affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs and find that a Committee was set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to look into the issues relating to cyber crimes and suggest a road map for effectively tackling cyber crimes in the country and giving suitable recommendations on all facets of cyber crime.
45. The Committee submitted its report in the first week of September 2015. The Ministry of Home Affairs accepted the recommendations of the Expert Committee in principle on 17-9-2015 and in principle approval has also been granted by senior officers of the Ministry of Home Affairs for two schemes viz. (i) Scheme for setting up Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) with the estimate cost of Rs 464.28 crores (from the allocated budget of MHA). (ii) Scheme for setting up Cyber Crime Prevention against Women and Children (Ccpwc) Unit with the estimated cost of Rs 244.32 crores (from Nirbhaya fund).
46. It is also stated in the affidavit that the data based on the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (Cctns) has in principle been approved for publishing in National Sex Offenders List. A detailed concept note has been prepared in this regard and shared with the Members concerned. A module for the same has also been finalised under the Central Citizen Portal in Cctns Project. It is further stated that setting up of the Investigative Units For Crime Against Women (Iucaw) are additional reinforcement to strengthen the existing infrastructure for tackling heinous crimes against women and in lieu of a Central Coordinating Mechanism.
47. The learned counsel should update us on the schemes along with a copy thereof with the final decision taken on publishing a National Sex Offenders List as well as the progress with regard to the Investigative Units For Crime Against Women (Iucaw).
48. List the matter on 28-11-2016 at 2.00 p.m. We make it clear that no adjournment will be granted in this regard.
(2018) 15 SCC 565 (1)
Order dated 5-12-2016
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
49. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and they are at ad idem on the suggestions given by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by CBI and the Union of India.
50. However, before we finalise the order, it is necessary to issue notice to (i) Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd., Microsoft India Headquarters, DLF Infinity Towers 7th Floor, Tower ‘B’ DLF Cyber City, Sector 25A, Phase II, Gurgaon — 122002, (ii) Google India Pvt. Ltd., No. 3, RMZ Infinity — Tower E, Old Madras Road, 3rd, 4th and 5th Floors, Bangalore — 560 016, (iii) Yahoo! India Pvt. Ltd., Building 12, Solitaire Corporation Park, Guru Hargovindji Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai — 400 093 and (iv) Facebook, Facebook India Headquarters, Level 12, Building No. 14, Raheja Mindspace, Hi Tech City, Vittal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad — 500 081 (Andhra Pradesh). Accordingly, notice be issued to these entities returnable on 9-1-2017.
51. List the matter on 9-1-2017 at 2.00 p.m.
(2018) 15 SCC 565 (2)
Order dated 1-2-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
52. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also heard Ms N.S. Nappinai, learned counsel and we request her to assist us in the matter on subsequent hearings.
53. Two suggestions have been placed for consideration. The first suggestion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that some sort of Central Institution Mechanism should be established by the Government of India. This suggestion seems to have the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India as well as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It appears that the Government of India has given in principle approval to a body called the Cyber Crime Prevention Against Women and Children (Ccpwc) and the budget for the Ccpwc has been approved by the Standing Finance Committee (SFC) for implementation at a cost of Rs 195.83 crores during the next three financial years. The constitution of Ccpwc, its duties and responsibilities have not been mentioned in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs nor are the details of this body available in the affidavit filed by CBI. The learned counsel for the petitioner has suggested that this body which may also be described as a Central Institution Mechanism may address cases relating to preparation, transmission and circulation of videos depicting rape/gang rape as also videos of sexual violence of unknown women and children in the electronic media.
54. The further submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Central Institution Mechanism may function out of a Central Cell within CBI and may be headed by an officer not lower than the rank of the Inspector General of Police. Necessary infrastructure should also be provided to this Central Institution Mechanism. We have already referred to the budget that is proposed to be made available to the Central Institution Mechanism. The learned counsel for the petitioner also says that the Central Institution Mechanism may take cognizance of cases suo motu or on the basis of a complaint made by an aggrieved person.
55. The learned Additional Solicitor General says that he will take instructions and get back to us with regard to the constitution, duties and responsibilities of the Central Institution Mechanism or Ccpwc including whether it should be established in the Ministry of Home Affairs or in the office of the CBI and with regard to the necessary infrastructure, personnel and manpower for the Central Institution Mechanism or Ccpwc. The needful be done within two weeks.
56. Ms Nappinai has indicated and submitted that in some western countries instead of blocking objectionable videos, uploading of videos is blocked at the first instance and thereafter the person who wants to upload the video informs the service provider that the video is copyrightable or he holds a copyright on the video and then the service provider uploads that video. This eliminates the uploading of objectionable videos. She submits that a similar sort of mechanism can be adopted for the purposes of blocking explicit videos and photographs and contents (textual contents) of objectionable material.
57. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Facebook Ireland that there is already a mechanism in operation through which it is possible to scan objectionable photographs and to block them and to stop them from being uploaded. He, however, points out that there is a possibility of masking of photographs and that may result in some objectionable photographs being uploaded. He says that he is not aware whether any such technology exists with regard to videos and he would like to take instructions in this regard.
58. The learned counsel appearing for Yahoo India, Google India and Microsoft India also say that they would like to take instructions in this regard and get back on the technological aspect and the feasibility of adopting or adapting the suggestions given by Ms Nappinai.
59. On the request of the learned counsel for Google India, Google Inc., 1600, Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA (email: Support-in@google.com) is impleaded as respondent and formal notice may be issued to it. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that she will serve Google Inc. by email.
60. Any affidavit that may be filed by any of the parties should be filed within two weeks from today. List the matter on 21-2-2017 at 3.00 p.m.
(2018) 15 SCC 567
Order dated 22-3-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
61. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are glad to note that all the learned counsel are in agreement that some sort of a Committee should be constituted to assist and advise this Court on the feasibility of ensuring that videos depicting gang rape, child pornography and rape should not be made available to the general public, apart from anything else, to protect the identity and reputation of the victims and also because a circulation of such videos cannot be in public interest at all. None of the learned counsel and their clients are taking this as an adversarial litigation and they welcome the idea of setting up a Committee for this purpose.
62. The Government of India has suggested that the Committee should consist of the following persons:
1. Dr Ajay Kumar, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology who will be the Chairman of the Group/Committee.
2. Dr Sanjay Bahl, Director General (CERT-In), Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
3. Mr Rakesh Maheshwari, Scientist-G, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
4. Two member representatives to be detailed by the Ministry of Home Affairs who will be identified and will be present throughout the discussions.
5. Ms Aparna Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Ms N.S. Nappinai, learned Amicus Curiae.
7. Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Facebook (Ireland) has stated that the following persons will represent that entity in the Group/Committee:
(a) Vikram Langeh, Manager Trust and Safety South & Central Asia
(b) One technically qualified person to be nominated by Facebook within two days.
8. Google Inc & Google India have nominated the following persons:
(a) Tech: Anthony Surleraux
(b) Policy: Kseniia Duxfield-Karyakina
(c) Legal: Gitanjli Duggal (Resident of India)
9. Yahoo India has nominated the following person:
(a) Robin Fernandez, Grievance Officer (Resident of India)
10. Microsoft has nominated the following persons:
(a) Mr S. Chandrasekhar, Group Director, Govt. Affairs (Resident of India)
(b) Mr Radhakrishnan Srikanth, Principal Group Program Manager (Resident of India)
(c) Mr Balakrishnan Santhanam, Sr. Program Manager (Resident of India)
Mr V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Microsoft says that two of the three participants will be available in every meeting/discussion.
63. The Committee will meet on 5-4-2017 at 10.30 a.m. at the venue to be decided by Dr Ajay Kumar, Additional Secretary and communicated by him to all the participants through e-mail. We expect the Committee to hold day-to-day discussions/meetings and preferably to arrive at a consensus on the possibility of ensuring that such objectionable videos pertaining to child pornography, gang rape and rape are not made available on the internet. For some technical reasons, if this is not possible, to explain and detail the reasons why it is not possible. The results of the meetings will be kept confidential and the report will be kept in a sealed cover till it is presented to this Court.
64. The learned counsel for the parties have assured us that all the participants will be available for all the discussions and meetings in Delhi except in the event of an urgency which should be explained to Dr Ajay Kumar, Additional Secretary. We make it clear that in case any technical inputs are required by any of the parties, video conferencing facilities will be made available. Wherever visas are required to be obtained, we request the Government of India to assist in obtaining them.
65. List the matter on 24-4-2017 at 2.00 p.m. as a part heard matter.
(2018) 15 SCC 569 (1)
Order dated 5-4-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
66. Upon being mentioned, the matter is taken up. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India that Dr Ajay Kumar, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology who, it was suggested will Chair the meeting of the Committee as mentioned in the order dated 22-3-2017, has fallen ill with typhoid. He says that under these circumstances it may be more appropriate if the meeting is Chaired by Arvind Kumar, Scientist G. and Group Coordinator, Cyber Laws, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
67. We accede to the request made by the learned counsel. Hopefully, Dr Ajay Kumar will recover quickly. When he recovers, he may begin Chairing the subsequent meetings.
(2018) 15 SCC 569 (2)
Order dated 11-4-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
68. The matter is taken on board. On an oral request made by Ms Aparna Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, WhatsApp Inc. having office at 1601, Willow Road, Menlo Park, California — 94025, United States of America [Email id: WhatsappLEC@subpoenasolutions.com] is made a party respondent.
69. Since the meetings pursuant to our earlier orders are being held on day-to-day basis, issue notice to WhatsApp Inc. returnable on 13-4-2017. Dasti, in addition. In the meanwhile, the learned counsel for the petitioner may also send a detailed e-mail to the newly added respondent to make a presentation, if possible through video conferencing, to assist the Committee.
(2018) 15 SCC 569 (3)
Order dated 13-4-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
70. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Whatsapp Inc. says that Whatsapp Inc. is willing to assist and is also prepared to attend the meetings being held. In fact, he says that the following three officials of Whatsapp Inc. will participate in the meeting:
1. Matt Jones, Software Engineer
2. Keyla Maggessy, Law Enforcement Response Manager
3. Christian Dowell, Associate General Counsel
The learned Senior Counsel says that the representatives of Whatsapp Inc. will assist the Committee in a special meeting to be held on 27-4-2017. The non-Indian members need not stay back for that meeting since they have other commitments.
71. It is made clear that the meetings of the Committee are being held in confidence and are completely confidential and are being held under the orders of this Court.
(2018) 15 SCC 570 (1)
Order dated 8-5-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
72. We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor General instructed by Mr Ajay Kumar who is the in-charge of the Committee set up in terms of order dated 22-3-2017. A report has been filed in a sealed cover which may be taken on record and should be kept by the Registry in a sealed cover.
73. It is submitted that there are certain issues on which a final decision could not be taken and further period of four weeks is required to take a decision on these issues and to make a final and comprehensive report. In view of the above, we adjourn the matter to 6-7-2017 at 3.00 p.m. by which date we expect a final and comprehensive report to be made available. The representative of WhatsApp may be co-opted as a member of the Committee.
74. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Amicus has to travel from Mumbai to attend the meetings of the Committee. To take care of her travel expenses that she is incurring from time to time, the Union of India should make a deposit of Rs 2,00,000 in the Registry of this Court which may then be handed over to the learned Amicus. The deposit be made within two weeks from today.
75. We request the Chairman of the Committee to continue to Chair the Committee till a final and comprehensive report is prepared and filed.
(2018) 15 SCC 570 (2)
Order dated 22-8-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
76. In respect of the Report that has been submitted, we have requested Mr Ajay Kumar, the Chairman of the Committee and the learned counsel for the parties to take instructions from the participants whether they have any objection to the Report being placed in the public domain with regard to the contents as well as the recommendations made for which there is unanimity and the recommendations for which there is no unanimity.
77. List the matter on 4-9-2017 at 2.00 p.m.
(2018) 15 SCC 571
Order dated 4-9-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
78. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned counsel for the parties and Mr Ajay Kumar, Chairperson of the Committee appointed by this Court.
79. It has been brought to our notice by Mr Ajay Kumar that the entities that had participated in the meetings have tentatively objected to the report being placed in the public domain but they would like to take a final decision in this regard. In our opinion, additional 10 days' time is sufficient for this purpose. We expect a response from the participating entities within 10 days specifying the portions (if any) of the report to which they may have an objection.
80. Insofar as the recommendations made by the Committee are concerned, we find that a proposal was mooted, that proposal was discussed and then an appropriate recommendation made. There are two categories of such recommendations. The first category is where there is a consensus between all the participants and the second category is where there is no consensus among the participants.
81. For the present, we request Mr Ajay Kumar to prepare ten sets of the proposals on which there is a consensus as well as the recommendations made on those proposals and separately ten sets of proposals on which there is no consensus in the recommendations made. The discussion held in respect of the proposals need not be included in those ten + ten sets. The sets will be given in a sealed cover (total twenty sealed covers) to the Court Master within three days and that be collected by the learned Advocates appearing for the participating entities as also Mr R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Union of India. No one else will be entitled to these sets and we expect that the learned advocates will keep the contents of the proposals and recommendations completely confidential.
82. The learned counsel may discuss the proposals and recommendations with their respective clients and ascertain whether these proposals and the recommendations on which there is consensus and on which there is no consensus can be placed in the public domain.
83. We make it clear that since these are only 4 recommendations made, even if there is any objection by any of the participating entities, we will take a final decision whether the recommendations should be made public or not or whether they should be accepted or not. The participating entities will give their specific response within ten days.
84. For the present, we would like the participating entities, namely, Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Google India, Microsoft and Whatsapp to place on affidavit the number of complaints that they have received from India about objectionable contents concerning child pornography and rape and gang rape for the calendar year 2016 and 2017 from 1-1-2017 till 31-8-2017 and the action that has been taken (if any) on these complaints. This would be in addition to any suo motu action that the aforesaid entities may have taken even without any complaint having been received from anybody in India.
85. We make it clear that the details of the action taken need not be stated on affidavit. We are only concerned with the number of complaints received and the number of the complaints on which action has been taken.
86. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs may file an affidavit indicating the number of prosecutions launched under Sections 19 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the calendar year 2016 and 2017 from 1-1-2017 till 31-8-2017. The affidavit may also be filed within a period of ten days. List the matter on 18-9-2017 at 2.00 p.m.
(2018) 15 SCC 572
Order dated 18-9-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
87. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr Ajay Kumar, Chairperson of the Committee appointed by this Court. Mr Ajay Kumar informs us that there are objections to some of the proposals and recommendations made by the Committee. He has prepared a chart of those proposals and recommendations to which there is an objection.
88. The learned counsel for the parties say that they would like to make submissions and substantiate the basis of those objections, but request that the hearing should be held in-camera. We have no objection in conducting the proceedings in-camera.
89. For the purpose of conducting the proceedings in-camera, the following steps need be taken:
(i) The Advocate-on-Record for the parties may obtain a copy of the report, both volumes, from their respective clients.
(ii) The Advocate-on-Record concerned will give a list of the Advocates and any person or persons representing any of the parties before us to the Court Master so that entry of any third party is ruled out. We make it clear that the representatives of the companies should be only from those who had participated in the discussions.
(iii) Mr Ajay Kumar has received a joint statement from the parties giving their objections to the proposals and recommendations being made public. The learned counsel for the parties say that they endorse the joint statement. They will file an individual affidavit endorsing the joint statement and also indicating reasons for objections to the discussions being made public.
90. Presence of the learned counsel appearing for the States is dispensed with until further orders.
91. With regard to the second issue before us viz. the disclosure of the number of complaints that have been received, the learned counsel for the parties say that they require some more time to file an affidavit. The affidavit may be filed within two weeks.
92. The Union of India should file an affidavit indicating the number of prosecutions launched within two days.
93. List the matter on 23-10-2017 at 2.00 p.m. The hearing will continue the next day if necessary.
(2018) 15 SCC 573
Order dated 23-10-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
94. On 18-2-2015, this Court had received a letter from NGO Prajwala to the effect that videos of sexual violence were being circulated in abundance.
95. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, an order was passed on 22-3-2017 constituting a Committee to assist and advise this Court on the feasibility of ensuring that videos depicting rape, gang rape and child pornography are not available for circulation, apart from anything else, to protect the identity and reputation of the victims and also because circulation of such videos cannot be in public interest at all. We had expected the Committee to preferably arrive at a consensus on the possibility of ensuring that objectionable videos pertaining to child pornography, gang rape and rape are not made available on the internet. For some technical reasons, if that was not possible to explain and detail the reasons why it was not possible.
96. The Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr Ajay Kumar, the then Additional Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The following persons participated in the deliberations of the Committee:
1. Shri Arvind Kumar, GC, Cyber Laws and e-Security, MeitY.
2. Dr Sanjay Bahl, DG, Cert-In;
3. Shri Rakesh Maheshwari, Scientist G, MeitY;
4. Shri Sunil Pant, Deputy Secretary, MHA;
5. Shri Chakit Swarup, Product Manager, Digital India, MHA;
6. Ms Aparna Bhat, Counsel for the Petitioner;
7. Ms N.S. Nappinai, Amicus Curiae;
8. Shri Vikram Langeh, Manager Trust & Safety, Facebook;
9. Dr Jim Hunt, Software Engineer, Facebook;
10. Shri Michael Yoon, Policy Manager, Safety & Content, Facebook;
11. Dr Anthony Surleraux, Child Safety, Google;
12. Dr Ksenia Duxfield Karyakina, Policy, Google;
13. Ms Gitanjli Duggal, Legal, Google India;
14. Shri Robin Fernandes, Grievance Officer, Yahoo;
15. Shri S. Chandrasekhar, Group Director, Microsoft;
16. Dr Radhakrishnan Srikanth, Group Program Manager, Microsoft;
17. Shri Balakrishnan Santhanam, Sr Program Manager, Microsoft;
18. Ms Keyla Maggessy, Law Enforcement Response Manager, WhatsApp;
19. Ms Gayle Argon, Legal WhatsApp.
97. The Committee commenced its proceedings on 5-4-2017 and met virtually on day-to-day basis. The Committee also took the advice of the experts who made presentation before the Committee. The experts are:
1. Ms Susie Hargreaves, CEO and Mr Fred Langford, Dy. CEO, Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), UK;
2. Professor Venkatesh Babu, IISc., Bengaluru;
3. Mr John Shehan, Ncmec, USA;
4. Shri Atul Kabra, Security Expert, FireEye, Bengaluru;
Certain inputs were also received from various other experts being:
1. Dr Hany Farid, Professor & Chair, Computer Science, Dartmouth College, USA.
2. Dr Mayank Vatsa, Mayank Vatsa, PhD, Adjunct Associate Professor, West Virginia, USA.
3. Dr C.V. Jawqaqhar, Associate Professor, IIIT, Delhi.
4. Prof. Dr Anderson Rocha, Associate Dean, Institute of Computing, University of Campinas, SP — Brazil.
98. Presentations and papers were also discussed by the Committee and the following presentations and submissions were made:
1. Presentation by Ms Aparna Bhat, Advocate for petitioner/Committee.
2. Presentation by Ms N.S. Nappinai, Amicus Curiae/Committee Member.
3. Submission by Facebook representatives.
4. Presentation and submission by Google representatives.
5. Presentation and submission by Microsoft representatives.
6. Submission by Yahoo representative.
7. Combined industry submission of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Yahoo.
8. Presentation by Ministry of Home Affairs representative.
9. Written submission by WhatsApp.
10. Oral Presentation of Ncmec, USA and formal response to written queries.
11. Submission by Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), UK.
12. Presentation of Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), UK.
13. Presentation of Mr Atul Kabra.
The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for WhatsApp Inc. were taken into consideration as well as those of the representative of WhatsApp who assisted the Committee. The following persons represented WhatsApp Inc.:
1. Mr Matt Jones, Software Engineer;
2. Ms Keyla Maggessy, Law Enforcement Response Management;
3. Mr Christian Dowell, Associate General Counsel.
Two members from WhatsApp Inc. viz. Ms Keyla Maggessy and Ms Gayle Argon were also co-opted in the Committee.
99. After a full discussion, a comprehensive report has been submitted to this Court by the Committee in two volumes. The second volume contains the presentations made.
100. We have gone through the contents of the first volume which deals with various issues that had arisen before the Committee. All the parties before the Committee agreed on certain recommendations based on proposals made during the deliberations. Part I of Chapter 7 of first volume of the Report contains the proposals in which the Committee was able to arrive at a consensus while Part II consists of the proposals in which the Committee was not able to arrive at a consensus.
101. We have been taken through the proposals as well as the recommendations made by the Committee on which there was a consensus.
102. We may note that Proposal No. 9 was actually dropped by the Committee. In other words, there are 11 proposals on which there is agreement between the members of the Committee and one proposal which pertained to WhatsApp Inc. being Proposal No. 18 which has been accepted while Proposal No. 19 pertaining to WhatsApp Inc. was dropped.
103. The proposals and the recommendations made on which there is consensus read as follows:
Proposal
Recommendations
1.
(a)
The search engines expand the list of key words which may possibly be used by a user to search for CP content.
Government of India may work with the represented companies as well as civil society organisations to suggest expansion of the list of key words for showing CP warning ads/public service message on search.
(b)
These key words should also be in Indian languages and vernacular search.
The same may be gradually expanded to other Indian languages where applicable.
(c)
These key words should be expanded to cover RGR content.
For RGR, the Government of India may work with the represented companies as well as civil society organisations to suggest the list of key words for RGR warning ads/public service message.
2.
Creating an administrative mechanism for reporting and maintenance of data in India.
(a)
Either within the CBI, or under the aegis of the MHA, a cell must be set up to deal with these crimes.
The Committee agrees that there is a need to create a Central Reporting Mechanism (India's hotline portal), as has been done in other countries, like in the U.S. with Ncmec. Further there is a need to strengthen law enforcement in this area. Any person/organisation should be able to report any CP and RGR content in India with ease with provision for anonymous reporting. This portal may go for Inhope membership, as an Indian Hotline.
(b)
A hash bank for RGR content be created (under the charge and control of Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI or through authorities or NGOs authorised by it).
The Committee also agreed that there is a need to develop a centralised agency to maintain and verify the hashes of all known CP and RGR imagery.
(c)
GoI to formulate specific parameters for identifying RGR content to ensure expeditious identification and removal;
Government may look into these for appropriate action expeditiously.
(d)
The hashes so generated must be under the custody of the centralised cell as stated hereinabove who will take to prosecute, as per the law.
(e)
A reporting mechanism must be created at a Central level, preferably with the CBI (in view of their role and special access) to also receive information of any CP/RGR content being circulated in the social media or any other platform over the internet.
(f)
The cell would regularly engage with represented Companies and the Ncmec for updation of technology, technical support etc.
(g)
Technology similar to Project Arachind crawler technology be availed of, for identifying India — based CP and also to adapt the same for identifying RGR content online.
(h)
Content hosting platforms (CHPs), Search Engines and GoI to work together in formulating process for proactively verifying, identifying and initiating take down of all CP/RGR content.
3.
Project Ccpwc being a general project to alleviate crimes against women and children, a special focus sub-project to be created within the same for eliminating CP\RGR to undertake the following.
(a)
The Online Portal proposed to provide for anonymous reporting of identified CP/RGR.
Government may take action, as appropriate expeditiously.
(b)
A separate hotline to be established for reporting (with the option for caller to remain anonymous) of identified CP/RGR content.
(c)
GoI to identify and authorise specific authority/entity for receiving complaints of CP/RGR online and for initiating action thereon within specified timelines; such authority to have immunity and permission to verify CP/RGR content and to initiate take downs: authority to also have specified processes for immediately intimating respective police stations for registration of FIR and for initiation of prosecutions.
(d)
A team to be set up for immediately verifying such tips and to issue directions to the service providers/intermediaries for immediate removal of such identified content.
(e)
Government of India team/authority to also immediately send communications to police stations concerned for registration of FIR and initiation of prosecutions. In view of the CBI's willingness to take this responsibility it is recommended that matter be handled by CBI and not by local police.
(f)
Government of India to create tipper list of NGOs. Tips from such sources to be acted upon immediately by GoI authority for take down and initiation of prosecution without delay.
4.
Creation of infrastructure/training/awareness building:
(a)
Government of India to form regulations for reporting of identified CP/RGR imagery online.
Internet companies should provide technical support and assist in capacity building to the relevant agencies in India including law enforcement and NGOs through a series of trainings on online crime investigations, and trainings on using relevant internet tools.
(b)
Government of India to ensure that search engines other than those already implementing URL blocks for identified CP/RGR content to initiate similar processes.
Internet companies should consider providing support to Indian NGOs to help bring awareness of these issues.
(c)
Government of India or its designated authority/NGOs to be extended permission/immunity for human intervention to identify CP/RGR content.
Government of India may also conduct regular training programme as well as relevant Government training infrastructure to have the latest technology on the subject-matter.
(d)
Government of India to allocate funds for training, verification, continuous monitoring and review of personnel involved in such human intervention process for identifying CP/RGR content, in line with those adapted by Ncmec/IWF.
Government of India may also partner with civil society organisations, research institutes to conduct programme as mentioned in (c) above. Premier research institutes like IISc must be encouraged and supported to have dedicated research programme to undertake these studies.
(e)
GoI/CHPs/search engines to involve in creation of awareness amongst users and sensitisation programs and capacity building initiatives for judiciary, prosecutors and law enforcement authorities, to mitigate the menace of CP/RGR dissemination.
(f)
GoI to set up processes for expeditious initiation of prosecution against users for identified CP/RGR content reported by CHPs.
5.
The solution lies in proactively identifying rogue sites by an independent agency which can identify sites that contains CP and
The members of the Committee were of the opinion that this could be a process that could be considered for suitable implementation in India.
RGR content and blocking these sites. To prevent the circulation of subject imagery, Government can block any additional sites/applications if they do not remove such contents of their own. MHA/designated LEA can be empowered to directly order Indian ISPs through DoT.
6.
The Government, through an appropriate agency setup a VPN to receive the Ncmec reports for uploading of CP from India. As conveyed by Ncmec, there were more than one hundred thousand reports belonging to India. Law enforcement agencies should initiate legal action against uploaders.
The Committee agreed that this should be looked into expeditiously.
7.
Removal of known CP/RGR imagery: When imagery is detected as CP/RGR, in addition to preventing subsequent uploads, content hosting platforms (CHP) voluntarily identify, remove and prevent distribution of previously existing content on their platforms.
The Committee agreed to the said proposal.
8.
There is need for greater thrust and emphasis on research & development of Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Deep Learning (DL)/Machine Learning (ML) based techniques for identifying CP/RGR content at the stage of uploading to enable real time filtering. Some specific suggestion in this regard may include as follows.
The Committee recognised the technologies developed by represented companies including PhotoDNA, Video hashing and other techniques for Imagery. However Committee also recognises the need for much greater collaborative work in the subject area amongst all stakeholders. The Committee also feels that video hashing technique should also mature as has been done for hashing techniques for images. Represented companies should further voluntarily collaborate with Ncmec to establish a shared database of CP video hashes similar to the image hashes database that is already used by the industry.
(a)
Traditional DL/ML techniques, including feature engineering based techniques and other Image processing techniques to be developed for identifying CP/RGR content at the stage of uploading.
(b)
CHPs to review existing architecture to screen/verify uploads for CP/RGR content using such AI/DL/ML tools after suitable technologies are developed.
(c)
AI/DL/ML tools to be tested real time (i.e. upon each upload).
The committee suggested that suitable research be initiated for further development of technologies for identifying CP/RGR imagery.
(d)
Research into above alternatives to be initiated in a time-bound manner.
(e)
CHPs to consider using Ncmec for creating deep learning/machine learning tools, subject to applicable laws, for CP (to avail of the huge data sets repository of Ncmec).
(f)
Government of India, along with CHPs to engage services of suitable experts for developing deep learning/machine learning tools for identifying RGR content.
9.
User authentication: Create a mechanism where users who seek to upload an image/video, falling within the subject content, using the pre-identified key words, are put to a more rigorous verification process which would have them believe that they would be traced.
The Committee decided to drop this proposal by consensus.
10.
Content removal processes/URL de-indexing process for identified RGR imagery should be as expeditious as removal of CP imagery.
The represented companies stated that they are continuously working on improving processes for review of content including RGR that is reported to them. The Committee noted the same.
11.
Content hosting platforms, social media platforms and search engines will provide links for reporting CP/RGR imagery, as a specific category and the same to be more prominently displayed on their pages.
The represented companies stated that they are continuously working on improving processes for reporting content including CP and RGR that violates their policies or applicable laws. The Committee noted the same.
12.
(a)
Create a mechanism to ensure that when CP imagery is identified, the CHPs shall preserve and retain such information of the uploader including the identified content to assist law enforcement.
The represented companies are already taking action in this regard. The Committee agrees to Part (a) of proposal.
18.
WhatsApp should make further improvement in their reporting process which would enable easier reporting of contents in the App while maintaining the integrity of the contents and metadata available on phone at the time of reporting.
There was consensus in the Committee. The Committee recommends that these efforts be taken up at the earliest.
19.
Compute the PhotoDNA has, VideoHash at WhatsApp Client on Mobile Handset level, and transmit them to central WhatsApp server for matching with CP/RGR Hashes database.
The Committee agreed not to pursue this proposal.
104. We expect the parties including the Government of India to abide by the recommendations on which there is consensus and to try and implement them at the earliest. We make it clear that any information that is based on or is pursuant to the proposals and recommendations to the Government of India will be kept confidential so as not to reveal the technology used by the participating service providers.
105. The Government of India will prepare a status report on implementation of the recommendations and place it before us in a sealed cover before the next date of hearing. On the next date of hearing, we will deal with the proposals on which there is no consensus.
106. List the matter on 11-12-2017 at 2.00 p.m. It is made clear that on the next date of hearing also the proceedings will be held in-camera.
(2018) 15 SCC 581
Order dated 11-12-2017
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
107. The learned counsel for the Union of India has handed over a status report. Unfortunately, on going through the status report, it is found to be more in the nature of comments rather than a status report. We expect the Union of India to file a proper detailed status report rather than comments on the orders passed by this Court.
108. The learned Amicus and the learned counsel for the petitioner have concluded their submissions with regard to Proposal 12(b) and Proposal 13. The matter may now be listed on 8-1-2018 at 2.00 p.m. for submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the intermediaries with regard to Proposal 12(b) and Proposal 13.
109. It is stated by Col. R. Bala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India that a portal has been prepared for making complaints by citizens with regard to issues pertaining to child sexual abuse, child pornography and rape/gang rape videos. The learned counsel for the Union of India says that the portal will be ready within a month. He further says that standard operating procedures are being prepared for use of the portal.
110. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the portal should be given adequate publicity so that people can make complaints. She says that there should also be a provision for making a complaint anonymously. Col. R. Bala, learned counsel says that he will advise the Union of India accordingly.
111. The matter has been pending for quite some time and we find from the affidavit filed by CBI on 8-10-2015 that steps are being taken to enable complaints being filed through a portal. It is high time that the Union of India gets the portal ready and available to the public at large. Therefore, we direct that the Union of India to have the portal ready on or before 10-1-2018. We would like the report to be given on the next date of hearing i.e. 8-1-2018 with regard to the progress made. It is also made clear that on the next date of hearing also the proceedings will be held in-camera.
(2018) 15 SCC 582
Order dated 8-1-2018
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
112. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Amicus Curiae.
113. The learned Additional Solicitor General has placed on record a status report in the matter of videos of sexual violence and recommendations. It is stated in the status report, inter alia, that the Ministry of Home Affairs has identified the keywords for child pornography/rape and gang rape content search and a list of keywords in English language has been compiled and circulated to content providers for further action. Efforts are being made to update the list on regular basis. It is orally submitted before us that the keywords in other languages will also be taken up for consideration in due course of time.
114. It is further stated that online cyber crime reporting portal has been developed with access name as www.cyberpolice.gov.in and that this portal is undergoing security audit and has been deployed in staging environment for testing and trial. It is expected that it will be operational very soon. It is further stated that certain features will be made operational by 10-1-2018 and offered to public such as anonymous reporting of child pornography/rape/gang rape content and online registration of cyber complaints which will be forwarded to the State/UT police authorities concerned for appropriate action.
115. It is also stated that certain other features are likely to be made operational by 10-2-2018 with regard to providing status update of complaints to registered complainants, portal access to other stakeholders willing to register for providing inputs on child pornography/rape/gang rape content and maintaining hash tag of obscene content.
116. For the time being, we adjourn the matter to 15-2-2018 at 2.00 p.m. so that we are made aware of the progress made by the Union of India in this regard. Further orders will be passed after the hearing on 15-2-2018.
117. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that her impression is that Facebook is developing or has developed new “proactive detection” technology for real time screening through artificial intelligence. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for Facebook may file an affidavit indicating whether any such technology has been developed and if it has not been developed the progress made for developing such technology, if any.
118. The affidavit be filed within three weeks. List the matter on 15-2-2018 at 2.00 p.m. It is made clear that on the next date of hearing also the proceedings will be held in camera.
(2018) 15 SCC 583 (1)
Order dated 15-2-2018
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
119. It is submitted by the learned ASG that with reference to order dated 8-1-2018, some more time is required for completing the exercise and putting a portal in place so that it is fully operational and responsive. The learned ASG says that it will take about four months' time for this exercise.
120. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be more appropriate if some sort of a road map is placed on record by the Ministry of Home Affairs so that there is some clarity on how the exercise is progressing. The learned ASG says that the road map can be prepared and filed within two weeks.
121. List the matter on 12-3-2018 at 2.00 p.m. However, it is made clear that the road map should be circulated immediately after two weeks.
Report of the Special Committee
122. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that it would be appropriate if all the parties can sit down together with the learned Amicus Curiae and the proposals before the Committee where there was no consensus can be classified into administrative proposals and technology related proposals. Once this identification is complete, which we expect will be agreed upon by all the learned counsel, appropriate directions can be issued by this Court.
123. Needful be done within two weeks. List the matter on 12-3-2018 at 2.00 p.m. as first item.
(2018) 15 SCC 583 (2)
Order dated 12-3-2018
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
124. A road map has been given by the learned Additional Solicitor General in the form of a status report. The learned Amicus Curiae has also given her submissions and a list of proposals about which there is some partial disagreement. The learned Additional Solicitor General says that the Ministry of Home Affairs would look into this and implement the road map and administrative issues at the earliest.
125. List the matter on 16-4-2018 at 2.00 p.m. as first item. It is made clear that on the next date of hearing also the proceedings will be held in-camera.
(2018) 15 SCC 583 (3)
Order dated 16-4-2018
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No. 3 of 2015
126. We have heard the learned Amicus, the learned ASG and learned counsel for the parties.
127. A very brief status report has been presented in the Court today. On going through the brief status report, we find that the Ministry of Home Affairs has committed itself to open the Beta version of the portal for online cyber crime reporting. The public launch of the Beta version is expected in the last week of April 2018.
128. It is also stated that connectivity of the portal has been tested with Maharashtra, Kerala, U.P. and Chandigarh. The process is underway to establish connectivity with all other States/UTs and efforts have been made to integrate as many States as possible before the launch date.
129. Our attention has also been drawn to the recommendation made by the Committee against Proposal 2 which is to the effect that there is a need for a Central reporting mechanism as has been done in other countries particularly in the United States. Orally, we have been told that some progress has been made in this regard but this is a very scattered sort of submission made before us.
130. We have also been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that there are several other Ministries that are interested in similar issues such as the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The learned ASG informs us that the Ministry of Electronics, Information and Technology is also interested in taking corrective steps insofar as cyber crimes are concerned particularly those relating to rape/gang rape/child pornography.
131. It would, of course, be in the interest of all concerned if the Central reporting mechanism is set up. Orally, we have been informed that some sort of systems are in place.
132. We would like to have a comprehensive and detailed status report from the Ministry of Home Affairs informing us about the progress made keeping in view the fact that there is a road map already indicated in the affidavit dated 1-12-2015 and other subsequent affidavits. The status report will deal with all these issues in a comprehensive manner.
133. We would also like to know from the parties before us before the next date of hearing about the status of progress made pursuant to the recommendations accepted by these entities as mentioned in the Report of the Committee.
134. List the matter on 11-5-2018 at 2.00 p.m. as a first item. It is made clear that on the next date of hearing also the proceedings will be held in-camera.
Court Masters