'It Appears Facebook Is Not Complying With IT Rules': Uttarakhand High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On FB For Not Filing Reply In PIL

Imposing costs of Rs 50,000 on Facebook for failing to reply to a petition alleging circulation of a morphed video on the social media site, Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday said prima facie it appears that the Meta-owned platform is not complying with Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

The division bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe warned Facebook that no further time shall be granted to it for filing the response.

"While granting four weeks' time to respondent no.6 to file its counter-affidavit, which should also disclose the steps taken by the said respondent to comply with the aforesaid Rules, we subject to respondent no.6 to costs of Rs.50,000/- out of which, Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner and the remaining amount shall be deposited with the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association. The costs be deposited within three weeks," said the court.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed last year before the High Court seeking framing of guidelines to deal with cases of online extortion and online abuse that particularly impacts the younger generation. It also sought a direction for setting up a helpline and coordination amongst authorities and social media sites to deal with cases of online abuse.

One of the grievances of the petitioner is that someone has uploaded a morphed video, "containing obscenity involving" him, and circulated it on Facebook. When he complained to the social media platform against it, the petition states that only an automatic reply was received.

During the hearing on Wednesday, Abhijay Negi, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the IT Rules mandate the publisher or a significant intermediary like Facebook to act in terms of a grievance redressal mechanism and the self-regulating mechanism.

However, he alleged that Facebook has not acted in terms of the grievance redressal mechanism and the the petitioner's complaint has fallen on deaf ears.

The court was also told that though Facebook was served with the petition last year, no counter affidavit has been filed till date. Vikas Bahuguna, the counsel representing Facebook, sought more time to file the counter affidavit.

The division bench headed by Chief Justice Sanghi said: "Prima-facie, it appears that respondent no.6 is not complying with the aforesaid Rules, which are statutory in character and bind respondent no.6."

The court listed the matter for hearing on February 16.

Case Title: Alok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order