Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Public Notification of IT Intermediaries’ Designated Officers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by K N Govindacharya, seeking directions for the notification of designated officers of intermediaries under various Information Technology Rules. The Bench comprising Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “No merit in the petition.”

The PIL revolved around the enforcement of certain provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and subsequent rules. Specifically, the petitioner sought the public notification of the details of designated officers appointed by intermediaries under Rule 13 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

The petitioner expressed concerns about rising cyber-crimes and national security issues, contending that public disclosure of these officers would aid in addressing these concerns. However, the respondent, Facebook Inc., argued that their officer under Rule 13 had been appointed but was not required to interact with the public.

The Court found no basis for the petitioner’s request, noting that the officer appointed under Rule 13 is meant solely for interaction and coordination with the Central Government’s Designated Officer under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2009. “There is no obligation under the Rules to publicly notify the officer’s details,” the Court stated.

The Court further differentiated between Rule 4, requiring the publication of Nodal Officer details, and Rule 13 of the Rules of 2009, which does not necessitate public notification of designated officers of intermediaries.

Given the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Court concluded that the petition lacked merit. The Bench remarked, “With the appointment of the Grievance Officer under Rule 3(2) and Grievance Appellate Committee under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2021, the public now has access to a robust grievance mechanism.” Consequently, the petition and pending applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision: February 13, 2024.

K N Govindacharya Vs. Union of India & Ors,

Latest Legal News