High Court seeks response from L-G, Centre in plea authorising Delhi Police to block online content
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Delhi Lieutenant Governor and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology within six weeks in a public interest litigation challenging a notification appointing the Delhi Police as the nodal agency, under IT Act and Rules, for blocking online content or issuing take down notices.
The notification was issued by the L-G in December last year.
The challenge comes even as the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre under the Ministry of Home Affairs told the Delhi High Court on April 29 that it is in the process of integrating the Application Programming Interface (API) with around 1,100 entities, including internet service providers, social media intermediaries and telecom network providers on its Sahyog portal.
With the API integration with the IT intermediaries and other entities on the cyberspace, any request for a takedown raised by a law enforcement agency, will automatically be pulled down in real-time without any human intervention.
For example, the moment a law enforcement agency (LEA) puts a request on the portal for takedown of content, the platform, if its API is already integrated with Sahyog, will take down the content immediately. This will also empower local police stations to order for take down of content. According to a source, over 15,000 LEAs are now onboarded on the portal.
The Sahyog portal, launched in 2024, is aimed at expediting the process of sending notices to IT intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agency under Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link with an objective to curtail/detect unlawful/criminal act.
The provision of Section 79(3)(b), part of the safe harbour provision, requires that a content flagged as unlawful by the government or its agency, has to be taken down first whereafter any grievance or appeal is entertained.
In the petition filed by Software Freedom Law Center India (SFLC.in) through its advocate Musheer Zaidi, the constitutional validity of the notification has been challenged, submitting that the same is without the authority of law, and adds that the IT Act 'does not envisage the creation or functioning of any nodal agency' in the manner as has been done through the notification.
SFLC India has contended that such appointment of members of the police as a nodal agency and delegation of authority to law enforcement agencies, without necessary safeguards 'results in unbridled discretion and opens the door for unchecked censorship.'
On December 26, 2024, the Home department of the Delhi government issued a gazette notification designating the Delhi Police as the nodal agency for performing functions under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000.
The notification also appointed Joint Commissioner of Police, IFSO (Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations), Special Cell as state nodal officer, DCP IFSO as he assistant state nodal officer, and DCP of districts, IFSO, EOW, Crime, Special Cell, Special Branch, IGIA, Railways and Metro as designated officers for issuing takedown notice pertaining to cases reported in their respective jurisdictions and for notifying instances of unlawful act online.
Seeking quashing of the notification, SFLC.in has argued in its plea that Section 69A of IT Act already establishes the procedure for blocking access to information.
It has also argued that IT Act Section 79 (3)(b) 'explicitly establishes that only a notification by the appropriate Government or its agency can be considered for the issuance of takedown orders,' and the L-G, 'even while acting as the so-called 'nodal agency,' cannot unilaterally declare the authority of the Delhi Police to be the 'appropriate government or its agency' for the purposes of issuing such orders.'
The petitioner has further submitted that 'allowing them to issue takedown notices without judicial oversight could lead to arbitrary actions, infringing upon the due process of law.'
Issuing notice on Wednesday, the bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela kept the matter next for consideration on September 17.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Call of duty: Police ring in relief, return 265 stolen phones
New Delhi: For many, a stolen phone is a lost cause, a frustration resigned to memory. However, Delhi Police 's Crime Branch has brought a smile — and solace — on the faces of 265 individuals, achieving a remarkable feat of recovering their mobile devices. As part of its ongoing initiative, Operation Track Back–II, the Crime Branch recovered these stolen mobile phones and handed them over to their verified owners at an event held at Police Headquarters on Monday. The operation also led to the arrest of 29 individuals and helped solve 72 related cases. This event marked the second such mass handover since Feb, when 216 phones were returned under the first phase of the initiative. According to Devesh Srivastava, special commissioner of police (Crime), the special programme is aimed at strengthening the cops' connection with the citizens. "Recognising the incidents of mobile phone theft in Delhi-NCR and the associated risks to citizens' personal data and security, the Crime Branch launched the operation with the tag line that says 'Returning happiness to the citizens'. We made a significant breakthrough in tracking and recovering stolen and lost phones," Srivastava said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The officer added, "The initiative aims to provide relief to innocent victims who suffer distress due to the loss or theft of their valuable mobile devices. Besides solving heinous cases, these are small steps which can restore happiness to common people." The latest operation follows months of targeted raids and investigations by teams from various units of the Crime Branch. Among the key recoveries, a team led by inspector Gurmeet Singh seized 117 phones over four months from several accused individuals. Of these, 25 devices were tied to online FIRs and 34 were flagged in lost reports, both from Delhi and other states. Another team arrested two men and recovered 40 stolen phones, an office revealed. However, restoring the phones to their owners was not easy. According to joint commissioner Surendra Kumar, many phones were either locked or completely drained, rendering the task of determining their owners challenging. "There were a large number of recovered devices and linking these phones to the registered FIRs and lost reports required meticulous efforts. But the team did a remarkable job," Kumar said. The process involved using a combination of technical tools and investigative techniques, particularly IMEI analysis, according to sources. A team of police officers spent several hours tracking IMEI numbers, FIRs and the new numbers of phone users whose stolen devices they had recovered. The laborious task required the team to meticulously sift through volumes of data for details and follow up on every lead to identify the rightful owners of the phones. Despite the complexity and time-intensive nature of the effort, the team successfully reunited many stolen devices with their owners. Delhi Police has urged citizens to promptly file e-FIRs and keep IMEI numbers safe to aid recovery.
Hans India
4 hours ago
- Hans India
Batla House demolitions: Delhi High Court asks DDA to maintain status quo till July 10
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday told the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the city government to maintain status quo till July 10 as it dealt with a writ petition filed by seven 'long-standing' residents of Batla House against "the arbitrary and illegal threat of demolition". Posting the matter for further hearing on July 10 with other pending petitions, a bench of Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta asked the authorities in the national capital to respond to the petitioners' claim that the former have sought to indiscriminately target properties beyond the identified area and without issuance of individual notices. The petition, filed by advocate Fahad Khan, claimed that the petitioners have not been served with any demolition notices as required by law, and during a field survey, their properties were marked for demolition and were orally informed of imminent coercive action. "The threatened action thus amounts to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, the right to livelihood under Article 21, and the equal protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution," said the petition. Adding that the petitioners have not been served with any notice whatsoever, the plea demanded that the authorities should be restrained from taking any demolition action without complying with due process of law, and to maintain the status quo pending a proper demarcation and assessment under the PM-UDAY Scheme. The Delhi High Court has already passed status quo orders after several writ pleas were filed against the demolition notices, claiming that the petitioners' properties fell outside Khasra No. 279 or fell within Khasra No. 279 but are eligible under the PM-UDAY Scheme. The DDA action stems from a Supreme Court directive ordering the clearance of encroachments on public land. The apex court order also clarified that if the occupants are aggrieved by the demolition notices, they are free to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Amanatullah Khan, challenging the proposed demolition action. A division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia observed that only aggrieved residents can make a claim that their properties exist beyond the proposed demolition site. Sensing the disinclination of the court to extend any relief, the senior counsel, appearing on the AAP leader's behalf, sought permission to withdraw the PIL. In its June 11 order, the Justice Kathpalia-led Bench took note of the submission that the legislator from Delhi's Okhla constituency would inform the residents of their right to file appropriate legal proceedings within three working days, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
CLAT PG exam: On plea against ‘exorbitant counselling fee', Delhi HC seeks response from NLU, BCI, UGC
The Delhi High Court on Monday sought response from a consortium of National Law Universities (NLU), the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) on a petition moved by an aspirant challenging the 'exorbitant' counselling fees being charged for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) PG exams. 'This is the only examination in the whole country where such a high fee is taken…hundreds are not able to participate,' Advocate Siddharth R Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, Jatin Shrivastava, who scored 474th rank in the CLAT PG exams, told the court. 'I'm praying for interim relief…please let me participate without paying the fees. I've already paid 30,000 refundable fees. I'm being charged 20,000 per round,' Gupta said. 'The process is going on, second counselling is going on. How can I disturb the whole system for one candidate?' asked Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta while issuing notice to the consortium. 'For freezing the seat, Rs 20,000 will have to be paid again…I can't fill the form without this payment,' said Advocate Gupta on the petitioner's behalf. When asked by the judge about the next CLAT PG counselling date, Advocate Gupta responded that it was scheduled for July 4. After hearing the response, Justice Gupta posted the matter for hearing on July 2 — two days before the third round of counselling and further directed the consortium to file a reply to the aspirant's plea. An interim order in favour of the aspirant was not passed by Justice Gupta. In the plea moved by Srivastava, examples of the counselling fees for 15 exams were attached. It was also argued in the petition that charging a high fee was discriminatory towards those who didn't have the means to pay. A similar petition has been filed before the Kerala HC against the 'exorbitant fees' charged during counselling. This plea is likely to be heard later in July.
