(ii) The data centres and servers of Telegram are located outside India and the direction for disclosure would violate the laws of the jurisdiction where the servers are located. Moreover, Telegram uses a distributed physical infrastructure and is bound by the provisions of the PDPA, Singapore. (iii) Telegram itself is a Dubai-based company and is bound by the laws of Dubai. (iv) In any event, Telegram is an ‘intermediary’, which is only expected to act as per the IT Act and IT Guidelines. Such an intermediary only has to remove the infringing content upon being given notice and is not liable for third party information circulated on its platform. (v) In case Telegram discloses such personal data, it might be in breach of Section 72A of the IT Act, which makes unauthorised disclosure of information in breach of a contract, a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years. (vi) There is no proof of infringement of copyright produced before the Court, and even the current impugned channels have been removed in good faith. However, the order dated 28th July, 2020 was passed on the understanding that the Plaintiffs would provide verifiable proof of the channels sought to be removed. (vii) There is no valid ground for directing discovery, as the Plaintiffs have not proven how the private user data sought to be disclosed is material or relevant to the present suit’s adjudication, as required by the CPC. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 13 of 51