Delhi High Court Refuses Pre-Censorship Of Content Against Rohingya Community On Facebook, Says Treatment Can't Be Worse Than Disease

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an order directing the Union Government to restrain Facebook India from allegedly promoting “hateful and harmful content” against the Rohingya community on the social media platform.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that the suggestion that there should be prior censorship of any publication on Rohingyas on Facebook is an example of “a treatment that is worse than the disease.”

The court took note of the legal obligations of the social media platforms to not promote dissemination of hate speech and the existence of regulatory framework of Information Technology Rules, 2021, and the grievance redressal mechanism provided thereunder.

“Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid Rules the direction sought by the Petitioners to Union of India to restrain Facebook from allegedly promoting, amplifying, spreading hate speech covered by Section 153 and 500 of IPC and particularly hate speech against Rohingyas does not arise for consideration,” the court said.

It added that where an Act provides a complete machinery for redressal the aggrieved party is not permitted to abandon that machinery to invoke jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

“Consequently, as there is a robust grievance redressal mechanism in existence, the Petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy and are at liberty to avail the redressal mechanism as per IT Rules, 2021, with respect to any objectionable posts,” the court said.

Accordingly, the bench disposed of a PIL moved by two Rohingya refugees, Mohammad Hamim and Kawsar Mohammed, against Facebook India to immediately take measures to stop use of its algorithmic features that allegedly promote “hateful and harmful content” against the Rohingya community

The petitioners fled Myanmar due to ethnic violence and have been residing in the national capital for the last 2 to 5 years.

They sought a direction on Facebook to halt the use of its virality and ranking algorithms, which allegedly encourages hate speech and violence against minority communities.

An application was also filed for amending the petition to the extent of seeking a direction on the Union Government to take steps in accordance with law for restraining Facebook from allegedly promoting hate speech against the Rohingya community.

The bench observed that the reliefs sought against Facebook are not maintainable as there is no allegation in the writ petition that the authorities have failed to abide by its statutory obligations under the IT Rules 2021.

It was Facebook's case that the Central Government has enacted the IT Rules of 2021 which has put in place a three tier system to tackle offending posts, including hate speeches, on social media platforms.

Facebook sought dismissal of the plea by submitting that no reference has been made in it as to how the guidelines put in by the social media platform are ineffective.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Colin Gonslaves, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejas Karia, Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Shashank Mishra, Mr. Shyamlal Anand, Mr. Vishesh Sharma, Ms. Ramayni Sood and Mr. Rahl Unnikrishnan, Advocates for Meta Platforms Inc. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Ms. Nidhi Mittal and Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Advocates for R-3/UOI

Title: Mohammad Hamim & Anr. v. Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 117

Click Here To Read Order