Information Technology Act, 2000 — S. 79 — Intermediaries — Non-joinder of uploaders/publisher — Maintainability of suit. Non-impleadment of the publisher, author of the book, or the persons who uploaded the impugned videos is not fatal at the prima facie stage. Where the identities of uploaders are not readily ascertainable from the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI), the suit cannot be dismissed for non-joinder. The intermediary platforms, through which the impugned content is disseminated, are necessary and proper parties. (Paras 23–25).

advocatemmmohan

Information Technology Act, 2000 — S. 79 — Intermediaries — Non-joinder of uploaders/publisher — Maintainability of suit. Non-impleadment of the publisher, author of the book, or the persons who uploaded the impugned videos is not fatal at the prima facie stage. Where the identities of uploaders are not readily ascertainable from the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI), the suit cannot be dismissed for non-joinder. The intermediary platforms, through which the impugned content is disseminated, are necessary and proper parties. (Paras 23–25).

Defamation — Internet publication — Video summarising previously restrained book — Defamatory content. Where the impugned videos are substantially a summary/paraphrase of a book whose offending portions had already been restrained by a previous judicial order, the videos also prima facie constitute defamatory content. A public figure does not forfeit the right to reputation merely because of public status. (Paras 26–33).

Information Technology Act, 2000 — S. 79 — Geo-blocking — Meaning. Geo-blocking is merely territorial or geographical blocking. Content remains available on global platforms outside the blocked territory and therefore amounts only to partial disablement of access. (Paras 50–54).

Information Technology Act, 2000 — S. 79 — Intermediaries — Global blocking — Court orders. Where intermediary platforms themselves remove content globally under their internal policies, there is no reason why a judicial order directing removal of unlawful content should be confined only to territorial geo-blocking. (Paras 51–54, 94).

Jurisdiction — Internet — Upload from India — Global dissemination. When defamatory material is uploaded from an IP address located in India and is thereafter replicated and disseminated globally through the intermediary's computer network, Indian courts possess jurisdiction to direct removal or disabling of such content from the entire computer resource and not merely from a geographically limited segment thereof. (Paras 80–82, 94).

Information Technology Act, 2000 — S. 79 — Global injunction — Uploads from India and abroad — Distinction. Content uploaded from IP addresses within India is liable to be removed or disabled globally. In respect of content uploaded from outside India, intermediaries may geo-block access within India, since the unlawful act is the dissemination of such content within India. (Paras 90–96).

Injunction — Global effect — Jurisdiction in personam. Indian courts are competent, in appropriate cases, to grant injunctions having global effect where the defendants are subject to the court's in personam jurisdiction. Such power is to be exercised sparingly and for good and sufficient reasons. (Paras 88–90).

Information Technology Act, 2000 — S. 79 — Effectiveness of judicial orders. Orders directing removal or disabling of unlawful online content must be effective and complete. Restricting relief only to geo-blocking where the circumstances warrant wider relief would render the court's order ineffective, as the offending material would continue to remain accessible through global platforms. (Paras 92–94).