Supreme Court - Daily Orders
In Re: Prajwala Letter Dated 18.2.2015 ... vs .......... on 4 September, 2017
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.4 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SMW (Crl.)No(s).3/2015
IN RE: PRAJWALA LETTER DATED 18.2.2015
VIDEOS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(With appln.(s) for impleadment)
Date : 04-09-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
Ms. N.S. Nappinai, Adv. (A.C.)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mayank Sapra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
For CBI/MHA/Delhi Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Ms. Gunwant Dara, Adv.
Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv.
Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv.
Ms. Aarti Sharma, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv.
Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Yahoo Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Soham Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kushank Sindhu, Adv.
Facebook Ireland Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Saanjh Purohit, Adv.
Ms. Richa Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Saluja, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
Digitally signed by
SANJAY KUMAR
Date: 2017.09.05
Facebook India
17:15:23 IST
Reason: Ms. Richa Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
2
Google Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Gehrana, Adv.
Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Chari, Adv.
Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee, Adv.
Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
for M/s. Karanjawala & Co.
Microsoft Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Divyam Agarwal, AOR
Mr. Akhil Bhardwaj, Adv.
Whatsapp Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tejas Karia, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Koshy John, Adv.
Mr. Raghav, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Shroff, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard learned amicus curiae as well as learned counsel for the parties and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Chairperson of the Committee appointed by this Court.
It has been brought to our notice by Mr. Ajay Kumar that the entities that had participated in the meetings have tentatively objected to the report being placed in the public domain but they would like to take a final decision in this regard. In our opinion, additional 10 days' time is sufficient for this purpose. We expect a response from the participating entities within 10 days specifying the portions (if any) of the report to which they may have an objection.
Insofar as the recommendations made by the Committee are concerned, we find that a proposal was mooted, that 3 proposal was discussed and then an appropriate recommendation made. There are two categories of such recommendations. The first category is where there is a consensus between all the participants and the second category is where there is no consensus among the participants.
For the present, we request Mr. Ajay Kumar to prepare ten sets of the proposals on which there is a consensus as well as the recommendations made on those proposals and separately ten sets of proposals on which there is no consensus in the recommendations made. The discussion held in respect of the proposals need not be included in those ten + ten sets.
The sets will be given in a sealed cover (total twenty sealed covers) to the Court Master within three days and that be collected by the learned Advocates appearing for the participating entities as also Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Union of India. No one else will be entitled to these sets and we expect that the learned advocates will keep the contents of the proposals and recommendations completely confidential. Learned counsel may discuss the proposals and recommendations with their respective clients and ascertain whether these proposals and the recommendations on which there is consensus and on which there is no consensus can be placed in the public domain. We make it clear that since these are only 4 recommendations made, even if there is any objection by any of the participating entities, we will take a final decision whether the recommendations should be made public or not or whether they should be accepted or not. The participating entities will give their specific response within ten days.
For the present, we would like the participating entities, namely, Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Google India, Microsoft and Whatsapp to place on affidavit the number of complaints that they have received from India about objectionable contents concerning child pornography and rape and gang rape for the calendar year 2016 and 2017 from 1st January, 2017 till 31st August, 2017 and the action that has been taken (if any) on these complaints. This would be in addition to any suo moto action that the aforesaid entities may have taken even without any complaint having been received from anybody in India.
We make it clear that the details of the action taken need not be stated on affidavit. We are only concerned with the number of complaints received and the number of the complaints on which action has been taken.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs may file an affidavit indicating the number of prosecutions launched under Sections 19 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the calendar year 2016 and 2017 from 1 st January, 2017 5 till 31st August, 2017. The affidavit may also be filed within a period of ten days.
List the matter on 18th September, 2017 at 2.00 p.m. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (MADHU NARULA) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER