Delhi High Court warns Facebook, Google over objectionable content
13 Jan 2012
The Delhi High Court sounded a warning to social networking site Facebook India and search engine Google India that websites could be "blocked" like in China if they failed to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable material from their web pages.
Justice Kait said, "Like China, we will block all such websites," while asking counsel for Facebook and Google India to develop a mechanism to keep tabs on web content and remove "offensive and objectionable" material.
The two companies while moving the High Court had sought a stay on summons issued to them by a Delhi trial court, hearing a private criminal complaint against them. Justice Kait did not stay the proceedings against the two websites before the magistrate's court. The case would be heard in the lower court today.
According to Mukul Rohatgi, former additional solicitor general representing Google India, postings of obscene, objectionable and defamatory articles and other posts could not be filtered or monitored.
He added human interference was not possible, and it was also not feasible to check such incidents given that billions of people across the globe were posting articles and other material on their websites. He said it might be defamatory and obscene but could not be checked.
While trying to make a distinction between Google US and Google India he said the, "The US-based Google Inc is the service provider and not me (Google India) and hence, we are not liable for the action of my holding company. Moreover, it is a criminal case where a vicarious liability can be fastened on a company which has no role, whatsoever, in the alleged offence," the lawyer argued.
Additional solicitor general A S Chandhiok, appearing for the centre, objected to Google's plea saying the US-based firm had "sufficient mechanism" to know that what was offending material.
Appearing for Facebook India, advocate Siddharth Luthra, questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the complainant. He said Facebook had no idea how the documents came into being. He said they were not in compliance with the Evidence Act. He also argued that Facebook could not be held accountable for the acts of the third parties.
