Author: Kurma Bhanu Chandra Jyothi, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Visvavidhyalayam
TO THE POINT
Petitioner was a sitting member of Rajya Sabha from All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and a photo was circulated on the defendant’s platform which was not in the knowledge of petitioner and she approached the court to grant interim injunction to stop circulating the photos and videos in the defendant’s platform. Here the question before court is that can an intermediary can be held for the posts which was posted by the third party in their platforms.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON:
1. Defamation: The act of making false and damaging statements about someone.
2. Libel: Written defamation, such as online posts or articles.
3. Slander: Spoken defamation, such as verbal insults or accusations.
Information Technology Law Terms
1. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Exemption from liability for intermediaries, such as social media platforms or websites.
2. Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services (now repealed).
3. Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000: Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Constitutional Law Terms
1. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: Right to freedom of speech and expression.
2. Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Right to life and personal liberty.
Tort Law Terms
1. Negligence: Failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person.
2. Vicarious liability: Liability of one person for the actions of another person, such as an employer for the actions of an employee.
THE PROOF
Information Technology Act, 2000
1. Section 79: Exemption from liability for intermediaries, such as social media platforms or websites.
2. Section 67: Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
3. Section 66E: Punishment for violation of privacy.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
1. Section 499: Definition of defamation.
2. Section 500: Punishment for defamation.
3. Section 503: Criminal intimidation.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1. Order 39 Rule 1: Grant of injunction.
2. Section 91: Public nuisance.
Constitution of India, 1950
1. Article 19(1)(a): Right to freedom of speech and expression.
2. Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
Other Laws
1. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Protection of women from domestic violence.
2. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957: Protection of literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.
International Laws
1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: Article 12 (right to privacy).
2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966: Article 17 (right to privacy).
ABSTRACT
Plaintiff filed a suit to grant permanent injunction against defendants who are Facebook Inc, Google LLC, YouTube LLC, and other from publishing, circulating and broadcasting the defamatory content such as videos photographs and audios in the defendant’s platform which was posted by the third party.
Plaintiff is sitting member of Rajya Sabha from All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). On 25, September, 2016 plaintiff through her family and friends came know about that her photos with some other people were circulating in the defendant’s platform and the person who is present in the photo was not even in the knowledge of the plaintiff. According to Article 21 she has a right to lead her life with personal dignity and preserve reputation. The man who is present in the photo was not known to the plaintiff and he belongs to opposition party and moreover that he was not the husband of the plaintiff and the photo was not in the knowledge of plaintiff and she contended that the photo which was circulating in the defendant’s website was morphed and the necessary action should be taken by the defendants against the particular post.
The court held that Information and Technology, Act 2000 intermediary can’t be held liable if the defamatory content was circulated in the defendant’s platform, then they have delete the post and take necessary action regarding the post. Here, in the present case the photo which was circulating in the defendant’s platform was not in a vulgar from and in that photo, it was looking like they giving pose to the picture and as political there is a chance to meet many people in the society and they can’t remember and it can be one of the reasons. To make intermediary liable the post should be in the form of defamation and no such defamation can be seen in the present post and suit was dismissed and intermediary was not held liable for the post which was circulated in the defendant’s platform.
CASE LAWS
Indian Case Laws
1. Shreya Singhal v. UOI (2015): A landmark case that struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, as unconstitutional.
2. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi (2005): A case that dealt with the issue of intermediary liability for online content.
3. Babajee v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004): A case that involved the issue of defamation and online content.
4. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International and Others (2010): A case that dealt with the issue of online defamation and intermediary liability.
International Case Laws
1. Riley v. California (2014): A US Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment.
2. Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protection de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (2014): A European Court of Justice case that dealt with the issue of the “right to be forgotten” online.
3. Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015): A European Court of Human Rights case that dealt with the issue of intermediary liability for online comments.
4. Tamiz v. Google Inc. (2013): A UK High Court case that dealt with the issue of online defamation and intermediary liability.
CONCLUSION
Hence, I conclude that I agree with the decision of the Hon’ble court the photo which was circulated was not in a defamatory way as a political leader their life will be somewhat exposed to the society and they will have many photos with different type of people. In some other cases women will suffer due to harassment in the form of stalking, sexual harassment in that case intermediary should be held liable because when defamatory posts are circulated in online platforms it is the duty of the concerned platform to block and the post and take necessary action against them. In some cases, celebrates life should be protected and their personal life should be protected.
FAQS
Did intermediary held liable in the present case?
No, in the present case intermediary not held liable.
From which party plaintiff contested as a member of Rajya Sabha?
From All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party plaintiff contested as a sitting member of Rajya Sabha.
