the opinion of this Court, be violative of law, even under the laws of Singapore. (iv) In respect of Telegram’s submission of it being an intermediary, and being obliged to not disclose the details of the originator of the information, in the opinion of this Court, merely disabling or taking down channels upon information being given to Telegram is an insufficient remedy, as also discussed in paragraph 39 above. The channels are clearly hydra-headed and are surfacing one after the other owing to the ease with which they can be created, with just another mobile number or email address. (v) Telegram has also relied upon Rules 3 and 4 of the IT Guidelines. The said Rules read as under: “Rule 3 (1) Due diligence by an intermediary: An intermediary, including social media intermediary and significant social media intermediary, shall observe the following due diligence while discharging its duties, namely:— (d) an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 37 of 51