Delhi High Court
Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 January, 2013
Author: V.K. Jain
Bench: Chief Justice, V.K. Jain
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7545/2012
MAULANA MAHMOOD ASAD MADANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mohd. Moonis Abbasi, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG and Mr. S.
Datta, CGSC with Mr Kunal and Ms Ritika,
Advs.for R-1.
Ms Neha Kapoor Khanna, Adv for
Mr Nazmi Waziri, Standing Counsel, GNCTD for
R-7
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 24.01.2013
1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the film "Innocence of Muslims" and its variants, which portray the Prophet of Islam, Prophet Mohammad, in an insulting, disrespectful, derogatory, defamatory, offensive, crude & humiliating manner, is being shown, exhibited, transmitted or broadcasted in India on Internet website "Youtube.com" and other social networking sites. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid film W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 1of 6 abuses the right to freedom of speech and expression and hurts the religious feelings and sentiments of the Muslim community of India at large.
2. When this matter was taken up on 05.12.2012, the counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that inspite of the order dated 03.10.2012, in WP(C) No. 6325/2012, the offending movie continues to be available on Internet. Earlier, WP(C) No. 6325/2012 was filed by the petitioners, seeking a direction to Union of India to completely remove and block the links of the entire movie/trailer of the move, „Innocence of Muslims‟ and all the clips emanating from the said movie, uploaded on „YouTube‟. At the time of hearing of the said writ petition, the learned Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that pursuant to orders of the different District Courts in the country it had, in exercise of powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, already blocked as many as 157 Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) hosting content related to clipping titled „Innocence of Muslims.‟ He further informed that inspite of the same, variants of the film were still available on the internet, resurfacing on different servers from different locations by changing the addresses. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents in the petition to W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 2of 6 treat the petition as a representation and deal with it in accordance with law.
3. The learned senior standing counsel for NCTD, who was representing Commissioner of Police, Delhi, stated that though the police had blocked certain sites, the movie popped up at other sites and a request in this regard was sent to Government of India to take up the matter with the website "Google". We accordingly directed the Additional Solicitor General to obtain instructions in this regard.
4. The learned ASG has today placed on record a brief note with respect to the grievance of the petitioner. It is stated in the note that Department of Electronics & Information Technology had received several court orders issued by Courts at Budagam, Ganderbal, Baramula, Srinagar, Anantnag in Jammu & Kashmir and by Courts at Akola, Bhiwadi, Mumbai and Delhi to block a number of URLs relating to the movie "Innocence of Muslim" and in compliance of these court orders, more than 190 URLs were ordered to be locked. In addition, 52 more URLs were blocked under the provision of rules notified under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
5. The following are the issues identified in the report read as under:-
"Content filtering, particularly for video/ image is very difficult and a full proof mechanism has not been developed as yet.
W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 3 of 6 Content filtering, based on text/ keywords may filter genuine and innocuous content as well, wherever such keyword appears.
Content creators are also becoming smarter by giving seemingly innocuous headings for the content which is otherwise, objectionable.
Foreign intermediaries do not always cooperate, insisting that they are governed by their country‟s laws and their own terms of usage only.
The Internet Technology is such that the same content of the blocked pathway can re-surface on different servers from different locations by changing the addresses."
6. The following steps, as per this note, can be taken in the matter:-
Within the framework of the law, specific URLs can be blocked by the Internet Service Providers. URL Address is the unique ID that every site link would have and hosting of such blocked content is an offence under the Indian Laws.
The intermediaries, as defined under the Act, like YouTube (Google) in this case, when informed of such illegal content, are required to initiate action and work with the person who posted such content for disablement wherever applicable within 36 hours. (Ref. Intermediaries Guidelines Rules 2011 notified on 11.4.2011 under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000).
W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 4 of 6
7. We take note of the fact that the respondents are actively seized of the matter, subject of this petition and have been making sincere efforts to prevent uploading of the movie in question on Internet. A large number of URLs, which are the unique ID that every site link would have, have already been blocked by the respondents. We also take note of the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that no foolproof mechanism has so far been developed for filtering of the contents on the website on the basis of video/image, and filtering of the contents on the basis of the text may result in genuine and innocuous contents also disappearing in case of such filtering. This is also a fact that the technology enables hosting of same or similar contents on different servers and from different locations merely by changing the URL. We are, therefore, satisfied that all reasonably possible efforts are being made by the respondents to redress the grievance of the petitioners. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition by directing that as and when any URL being used for hosting the film in question is brought to the notice of the respondents, they would make a request to the concerned service provider to block such a URL so that it is not used for the purpose of hosting the offensive film. The petitioners are permitted to bring any W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 5 of 6 information, which they gather in this regard, to the notice of the respondents, who shall take prompt action in accordance with law as and when any relevant information is provided to them by the petitioners or otherwise comes to their knowledge. The respondents will ensure that on such a request being made by them to the concerned intermediaries such as Youtube (Google), to block the URLs, being used for showing the film in question, are immediately blocked by them. If there is non-compliance of such a requisition by the concerned intermediaries, the respondents will take action against the intermediaries in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 24, 2013
bg
W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 6 of 6