Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bijay Metal Works vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2014
Bench: Dipak Misra, Vikramajit Sen
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2676 OF 2014
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5255 OF 2014
Bijay Metal Works Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Bihar and Others Respondent(s)
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2677 OF 2014
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5272 OF 2014
O R D E R
We have carefully gone through the Review Petitions and the connected papers, but we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned.
The Review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
....................J. [Dipak Misra] ....................J. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by [Vikramajit Sen] Chetan Kumar Date: 2014.12.04 17:07:35 IST Reason: New Delhi December 04, 2014 CHAMBER MATTER SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS R.P.(C) No.2676 OF 2014 In S.L.P.(C) NO.5255 OF 2014 BIJAY METAL WORKS Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T.) WITH R.P.(C) NO.2677/2014 IN S.L.P.(C) NO.5272 OF 2014 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and) Date : 04/12/2014 These petitions were circulated today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN By Circulation UPON perusing papers the Court made the following O R D E R The review petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file) It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that despite the legal prohibition, the respondents, namely, Google India, Yahoo India and Mocrosoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd., are still getting things advertised in violation of the legal provisions contained in the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, further amended from time to time. Learned counsel would submit that the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communication and Information and the competent authority of Department of Health and Family Welfare are required to work harmoniously to see to it that the provisions of the 1994 Act are not violated, for that gravely affects the sex ratio in the country which has been seriously viewed by the legislature, as well as by this Court on the basis of legislation made by the Parliament.
Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No3, Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, prayed for some time to file a reply to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Before we proceed to deal with the prayer for grant of time, we think it is obligatory to take note of one aspect. The Group Coordinator, Cyber Laws Formumation and Enforcement Division, Government of India, Department of Information Technology, had filed a counter affidavit on 16th August, 2010, we are compelled to reproduce a part of the said affidavit:
“While submitting this, it is further to submit that technological limitations pose a difficult task for providers of search engines to filter out/block the information violating the law. It is important to distinguish between two types of results that show up on a search engine.
(i) Organic Search results -
When a user enters a query in the search box a list of results that are most relevant to the users query are shown. In generating these results the search engine nearly indexes the information that is publicly available and accessible on the Internet in a purely authomated manne. These search resulsts are merely a list of third party independent website that are beyond the control and management of search engines themselves.
(ii) Sponsored links -
Sponsored links referred to the advertisements placed by advertisers after accepting the terms and conditions of use. These links advertise the goods and services offered by any advertiser and upon clicking on the URL, take the user to the parent website of the advertiser where the user can find more information on the particular product or service that he/she is interest in.
(f) The service provider/search engines only provide the carriage, technology for indexing information. The content information is provided by others. Wherever the service provider is providing only the carriage and transmission mechanism and not the contents/information, it is necessary that the distinction needs to be made between a service provider and a content provider. The service provider can only be liable to the extent service provided by him. Wherever the service provider/search engines are providing both carriage as well as contents, it should be their absolute responsibility to filter out/block the violated information and sponsored links.
(s) The pre-natal sex determination is an offence in India under PC & PNDT Act. However, it may not be an offence in other countries.
The information published on the websites is generally aimed at for wider, world wide dissemination and caters to the needs to many countries and may not be for the Indian citizens. Also, most of these websites are hosted outside the country. Blocking of such sites advertising pre-natal sex determinaton may not feasible due to their hosting outside the country. Moreover, some of the websites provide good content for medical education and therefore blocking of such websites may not be desirable.” As we understand the affidavit, a kind of helplessness is shown by the said deponent. That apart, we do not appreciate the manner in which the stand has been expressed in paragraph 's' of the counter affidavit, which we have reproduced hereinabove.
Mr. Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his turn, has submitted that other countries have been able to control such advertisements, which violate the laws of their countries by way of entering into some kind of agreement and also making provisions of technical tools. In our considered opinion, an effort has to be made to see that nothing contrary to laws of this country are advertised or shown on these websites. However, for the said purpose, we would like to have assistance from the competent authority from the Department of Information and Technology. We would request Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General to assist us on the next date, being assisted by a competent officer, as it involves technical issues.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have submitted that the websites do not violate the laws of India, but as though provide a corridor, they do not have any control. Be that as it may, a legal solution has to be arrived at.
Liberty to file reply, as prayed for by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 5, within a week hence.
List the matter on 15th December, 2014. As agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, let the matter be taken up at 2.00 p.m.