locating the physical server outside India would divest Indian Courts of their powers. e. In any case, it is also relevant to note that Telegram is actively making its services available in India and now even earning revenue from India, by its Premium services. In this regard, under the IT Guidelines 2021 relied upon by Telegram relies upon, there is an obligation on it to appoint necessary grievance officer(s) in India. f. Finally, this Court also notes the Supreme Court’s observations in Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550 and Krishan Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2166, where it has been repeatedly held that High Courts are vested with inherent powers to enable themselves to maintain their dignity, and secure obedience to their process and rules, i.e., and to give effective relief. In view of all these factors, Courts in India would be perfectly justified in directing Telegram, which runs its massive operations in India to adhere to Indian law and adhere to orders passed by Indian Courts for disclosure of relevant information relating to infringers. Infringers cannot be permitted to seek shelter under Telegram’s policies merely on the ground that its physical server is in Singapore. (ii) In so far as the law in Singapore is concerned, the provisions of the PDPA, in fact, specifically recognize violations of law, as being an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 34 of 51