Magistrates Have No Power to Block Online Content Under IT Rules: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court in Dhyan Foundation v. Google LLC & Anr. has ruled that a Magistrate does not have the power to block online content by using Rule 10 of the Information Technology Rules, 2009. The Court clarified that this rule does not give any authority to criminal courts to order the removal or blocking of digital content from the internet.
The ruling came in a case filed by Dhyan Foundation, an animal welfare NGO, against Google LLC. The NGO had objected to five YouTube videos that it claimed were defamatory. It approached a Mumbai Metropolitan Magistrate, who directed Google to stop circulating the videos.
When Google did not comply with the order, the NGO initiated contempt proceedings before the Magistrate. Google then challenged this action before the Sessions Court, along with an application seeking condonation of a 116-day delay in filing the challenge.
The Sessions Court allowed the delay and stayed the contempt proceedings. Aggrieved by this, Dhyan Foundation moved the Bombay High Court.
Before the High Court, Google argued that only the Central Government or authorised officers have the power to block online content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. This provision allows blocking only on specific grounds such as national security, sovereignty, and public order, and not through judicial orders by a Magistrate.
Justice N.J. Jamadar observed that there was a prima facie case showing that the Magistrate may have acted beyond his jurisdiction. The Court stressed that removing content from the public domain directly affects the right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the public’s right to access information.
The Court held that such restrictions can be imposed only when there is a clear legal provision supported by proper safeguards. In the absence of specific statutory authority, a Magistrate cannot order blocking of online material.
The High Court also upheld the Sessions Court’s decision to condone Google’s delay in filing the appeal. It rejected the NGO’s argument that internal delays within a large company are not a valid reason. The Court stated that matters should be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds, especially when there is no lack of good faith.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court refused to interfere with the stay on contempt proceedings against Google and affirmed that Magistrates cannot invoke the IT Rules, 2009 to block online content.
