Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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