Delhi High Court To Hear On May 10 Pleas By Meta, Google & Twitter Challenging 'Global Blocking Order' Of Content Against Baba Ramdev

The Delhi High Court will hear on May 10 a bunch of appeals filed by social media giant Meta (formerly known as Facebook), Google and Twitter against Single Judge's order imposing a global injunction upon them and directing them to take down defamatory content against Baba Ramdev.

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh today said that the interim order dated 28th January 2020 would continue wherein it was directed that no contempt proceedings will be initiated against the Appellants.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Meta, Senior Advocate Gobal Subramanium appeared for Google and Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appeared on behalf of Twitter.

The Court took on record the statement made by Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appearing for the respondents no 1 and 2 that reply in the appeals need not be filed.

Accordingly, while listing the matter for hearing on May 10, the Court asked the parties to file written submissions not exceeding five pages each which shall be submitted at least three days before the next date of hearing.

The impugned order was passed by Justice Pratibha M Singh in October 2019, while considering the suit filed by the yoga guru, alleging that various defamatory remarks and information including videos, based on a book titled "Godman to Tycoon – the Untold Story of Baba Ramdev" are being disseminated over Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

The single judge had vide order dated 23rd October 2019 held that so long as either the uploading takes place from India or the information/data is located in India on a computer resource, Indian courts would have the jurisdiction to pass global injunctions.

She had directed Facebook, Youtube, Google and Twitter to take the following course of action :

1. To take down, remove block, restrict/ disable access, on a global basis, to all such videos/ weblinks/URLs in the list annexed to the plaint, which have been uploaded from I.P. addresses within India.

2. Insofar as the URLs/links in the list annexed to the Plaint which were uploaded from outside India are concerned, the defendants are directed to block access and disable them from being viewed in the Indian domain and ensure that users in India are unable to access the same

3. Upon the Plaintiffs discovering that any further URLs contain defamatory/ offending content as discussed in the present order, the Plaintiffs shall notify the platforms, which shall then take down/ block access to the said URLs either on a global basis, or for the India domain, depending on from where the content has been uploaded in terms of (i) and (ii) above.

4. If the Defendant - platforms, upon receiving notice from the Plaintiffs are of the opinion that the material/ content is not defamatory or violative, they shall intimate the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs would seek their remedies in accordance with law

Facebook, in its appeal, had contended that despite the plaintiff being aware of the persons who uploaded the content, they were not made parties to the suit. Moreover, the injunction order was passed despite alternate remedies being available at the court's disposal.

The appeal was admitted by a division bench in October 2019 which had also clarified that while no interim stay would be granted, the respondents would not be allowed to move a contempt application before disposal of the appeal. 

The Appellants had claimed that the Single Bench had wrongfully interpreted section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, as the provision nowhere mentions that it has extra-territorial application.

Facebook had contended that Baba Ramdev did not show any strong prima facie case of irreparable loss in order to seek final relief such as global injunction. Therefore, the court erred in granting final relief at an interim stage of the case.

Appellants further submitted that the court did not show any exigencies to warrant a global injunction. The taking down of the content in India, as per the court's earlier interim order, was adequate to deal with the reputational concerns of Ramdev.

Further, it had been submitted, that the practice of global injunctions violate principles of national sovereignty and international comity. The impugned judgment interferes with the laws prevailing in other countries regarding online injunctions.

It was averred in the appeal that if present order is not reversed, it would undermine the immunities granted to the Appellants in other jurisdictions.

Case Title: FACEBOOK, INC. Vs. SWAMI RAMDEV & ORS