law requires disclosure of such information, it is not permissible to direct disclosure of the same inasmuch as the privacy of the person operating the said channel would be protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (iv) Post the judgment of Puttaswamy (supra), it is submitted that the Government has enacted the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics, 2021 (hereinafter “IT Guidelines”), which is also relied upon by Telegram. Specific reliance is placed on Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Guidelines, which primarily requires the intermediary to take down or remove or disable access to the unlawful information. Further, on the basis of Rule 4 of the IT Guidelines, it is argued that unless and until, any one of the situations as contemplated in the first proviso to Rule 4(1)(2) of the said guidelines is satisfied, even a Court order cannot be passed directing disclosure of the basic subscriber information. (v) Vehement reliance is also placed on the fact that Telegram has its servers based in Singapore which has encrypted data. Accordingly, decryption of that data would not be permissible except as per the laws of Singapore. Reliance is placed upon the Personal Data Protection Act, 2012, of Singapore (hereinafter “PDPA”), specifically, on the definitions relating to “personal data proceedings” under Sections 17 and 29 of the PDPA read with Schedule IV. He submits that while under Section 17 of the PDPA, Telegram may reveal certain information upon direction by a “Court”, since the “Court” in terms of the Interpretation Act Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 7 of 51