passive and obey the orders of the Court. An intermediary cannot argue on behalf of the person who has uploaded the content. It is submitted that the harm that is being caused by continued accessibility to the content is irreparable to the Plaintiffs, whereas there is neither any inconvenience nor harm caused to the Defendants if they are to effect global blocking. The platforms have the technical capability to carry out such blocking. 9. Mr. Wadhwa further submits that under the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (`2011 Rules‘) it is not for the intermediaries to decide what is defamatory. They are to merely follow the law, including orders of the Court. They have to appoint a grievance officer to take care of the users‟ grievances. The Plaintiffs cannot be forced to avail of legal remedies in every country to ensure that content is taken down. That would be a very high order, inasmuch as it would make the remedy granted by this Court completely ineffective. Defendants’ submissions 10. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Parag Tripathi, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for Facebook – Defendant No. 1, that no effort has been made by the Plaintiffs to implead the persons whose details have been provided in the BSI. He relies upon the judgments in Google Inc. v Equustek Solutions, Robert Angus and Clarma Enterprises Inc1 (hereinafter, “Equustek-I”) and Google LLC v Equustek Solutions Inc., et al. (hereinafter, “Equustek-II”)2 and submits that the question as to what 1 Google Inc. v Equustek Solutions, Robert Angus and Clarma Enterprises Inc 2017 SCC 34 (Supreme Court of Canada) 2 Google LLC v Equustek Solutions Inc., et al, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, case No. 5:17-cv-04207-EJD, December 14, 2017 CS (OS) 27/2019 Page 6 of 76