Social Media Intermediaries Have A Duty To Block Channel If Videos Violate Terms & Policies, Shall Not Insist On FIRs, Court Orders: Madras HC
The Madras High Court recently observed that social media intermediaries operating in India are governed by the Acts and Rules of the land. They have a duty to ascertain that videos are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. If these videos are found to be in violation, they have a duty to block such channels without insisting on FIRs or any Court orders. "There is a...
The Madras High Court recently observed that social media intermediaries operating in India are governed by the Acts and Rules of the land. They have a duty to ascertain that videos are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. If these videos are found to be in violation, they have a duty to block such channels without insisting on FIRs or any Court orders.
"There is a contract between the intermediaries and the channels. In case of any violation of the conditions, it is the duty of the intermediaries to remove or block the channel as per the terms of their agreement...The intermediaries are not expected to insist for FIR or any court orders to remove the videos which are in violation of their guidelines. If it is not blocked or removed even after it was brought to their knowledge, the intermediaries are committing the offence under Section 69A (3) of the Information Technology Act."
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai Bench was considering a petition for cancellation of bail granted to Youtuber Duraimurugan Pandiyan Sattai @ Duraimurugan for making derogatory statements against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu through his YouTube Channel.
The petitioner-State contended that Duraimurugan violated the terms of his bail and continued to commit impugned acts, thus committing civil contempt. Significantly, he was primarily granted on an undertaking that he has realized his mistake and will not indulge in such activities. The State also informed the court that Duraimurugan was constantly engaged in spreading such false statements in social media and a number of cases have been registered against him.
Duraimurugan, on the other hand, informed the court that he was not the only one making such content on social media. He stated that several people were promoting such kind of activities and were getting income from YouTube, which encouraged such defamatory videos as it earned more views.
The court observed that even though there are provisions under the Information Technology Act 2000 and Rules, the same was not being implemented by concerned authorities which has resulted in an increase in cybercrimes. Videos showing pornographic contents, making of gun, bomb and hooch, videos with derogatory statements, horrific videos etc were easily available in the internet and when accessed by current generation kids, it would create chaos in their minds and affect their mental growth.
The court was also informed that there were certain difficulties faced by the Cyber Crime Wing. In some cases, FIRs could not be registered due to unwillingness of the complainants. Even after registering FIRs, the intermediaries were asking for court orders which was difficult to obtain in a timely manner. These intermediaries like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube were blocking the content only temporarily and insisted on court orders for permanent blocking.
The court, in view of the seriousness involved, appointed Advocate Mr KK Ramakrishnan to act as an Amicus in the matter. Mr Ramakrishnan informed the court that intermediaries like YouTube had formulated community guidelines for its users. Thus, if any person finds any content violating the guidelines, they could report the same to YouTube which would issue a warning first and then terminate the account.
In the present case, the court was satisfied that even after being enlarged on bail, the respondent continued to make derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister which was in clear violation of the terms and conditions stipulated in the bail order. The court thus, cancelled the bail of the respondent and directed the investigating agency to take necessary steps.
Case Title: State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another
Case No: Crl MP (MD) No. 9457 of 2021 in Crl OP(MD) No. 9381 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr T Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Counsel for Respondents: Mr N Mohideen Basha
Amicus Curiae: Mr KK Ramakrishnan