Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2806 detection, investigation & prosecution, which are done as per the provisions of law.‖ 6. Thereafter, an Additional Affidavit dated 21.09.2021 was filed on behalf of the Petitioner noting that the offending material was consistently being reproduced and re-uploaded. On 06.10.2021, this Court was informed by learned Counsel appearing for Google LLC that though all the offending material had been removed from YouTube and the URLs which had been specifically supplied were de-indexed by Google, it did not mean that it could not be found on the internet through other search engines and that merely directing only the search engines to de-index the links would not be an adequate solution. 7. Due to the complexity in the nature of the matter and the fact that consistent Orders of this Court were being frustrated, vide Order dated 06.10.2021, this Court deemed it appropriate to appoint Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned Senior Counsel, as Amicus Curiae, to assist this Court on the position of law and the extent to which this Court can issue directions to intermediaries in such matters so as to protect the rights of the Petitioner and other similarly situated individuals vis-à-vis the duties of the intermediaries as well as the right to free speech. Accordingly, the scope of the instant Writ Petition under Article 226 has been expanded, and any directions that will be rendered will be limited to search engines, MEITY and Delhi Police. 8. A Short Affidavit dated 22.12.2021 was filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 in the instant matter, stating that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) is the custodian of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “IT Act”). The Short Affidavit delineates the objective and relevant provisions of the said Act as well as the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:26.04.2023 17:19:50 W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 Page 7 of 88