District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

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