Sabu Mathew George v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter concerns Writ Petition (Civil) No. 341 of 2008 before the Supreme Court of India. Interim orders dated 28-1-2015 and 12-5-2015, later reproduced in the order of 18-8-2015 ((2015) 11 SCC 545, referred to as the “Sabu Mathew” order), had restrained Respondents 3 to 5—Google India, Yahoo! India and Microsoft (I) Pvt. Ltd.—from publishing advertisements that violate Indian law and directed that the Court’s order be displayed prominently.

On 18-8-2015 the Court noted an affidavit from the petitioner alleging continued violations of the interim order. The respondents were given further time to respond, and the Union of India (UOI) was directed to file an additional affidavit.

By order reported in (2016) 14 SCC 420, the Court recorded receipt of the UOI’s affidavit and directed all remaining respondents to file their affidavits by 8-7-2016. It reiterated that intermediaries “cannot put anything that violates the laws of this country.” The Solicitor General was authorised to convene a meeting within ten days between technical experts of the respondents, the concerned Government department and the petitioner to devise steps ensuring that prohibited content is blocked. A memorandum of these steps was to be filed.

At the next hearing on 25-7-2016, the Court was informed that the meetings had taken place and “considerable progress” had been made toward a mechanism to block advertisements and other material found contrary to Indian law. The matter was then adjourned to 9-8-2016 for further directions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether internet intermediaries such as Google India, Yahoo! India and Microsoft (I) Pvt. Ltd. may display advertisements or other content that contravenes Indian statutory law or other laws having “statutory force or otherwise.”
2. What mechanism should be put in place to ensure that such unlawful content is effectively blocked from search results and advertising platforms.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Despite the Court’s interim order of 28-1-2015, the respondents continued to publish offending advertisements, as stated in an affidavit dated 14-8-2015.
• The order directing publication of the Court’s warning on the “policy page” of the respondents’ websites was inadequate; it should instead appear on the “home page” for effective public notice.

Respondents’ Arguments

• Senior counsel on behalf of the respondents sought time to respond to the petitioner’s affidavit and to the request for displaying the order on the home page.
• They agreed to participate in technical meetings with Government experts to explore ways of blocking unlawful content.

Union of India’s Submissions

• The Solicitor General undertook to file a comprehensive affidavit addressing the petitioner’s allegations.
• The UOI proposed to convene a meeting within ten days with technical experts from both the Government and the respondent companies, inviting the petitioner as well, to formulate a workable blocking mechanism.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded on the premise that internet intermediaries are bound by Indian law and cannot facilitate or disseminate content that violates such law. Consequently, it required:

• Affidavits from all respondents to address alleged non-compliance with previous interim orders.
• A collaborative process, led by the Union of India, to develop technical measures that prevent the publication of unlawful advertisements or content through the respondents’ search engines.

The Court indicated that once a suitable mechanism is agreed upon, it would review the memorandum and pass further directions. By 25-7-2016, it was satisfied that “considerable progress” had been made, justifying a further adjournment for finalisation of the proposed solution.

Holding and Implications

Order: The Court directed all non-compliant respondents to file affidavits by 8-7-2016, mandated a Government-convened meeting of technical experts (including the petitioner) within ten days, and scheduled the matter for further hearing on 9-8-2016.

Implications: The immediate effect is the formulation of a technical and legal framework to block advertisements and content that contravene Indian laws on major search engines operating in India. The order signals that intermediaries will be held directly responsible for compliance with domestic law, although no new binding precedent was established at this stage; the matter remains under judicial supervision.