Previous 1 / 88 Next

Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2806 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 26th APRIL, 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: + W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 & CRL.M.As. 12645/2021 & 811/2022 MRS X Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Mr.Sachin Tandan, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Gursihar Preet Singh, Mr. Danish Faraz Khan, Advocate for UOI. Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with Mr. Amit Peshwani, Ms. Aaliya Waziri, Advocates and Inspector Kusum Dangi, IFSO Cyber Cell, Dwarka. Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Mr. Vatsalya Vishal & Ms. Riya Gupta, Advocates for R-3/Google LLC. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anushka Sharda, Mr. Madhav Khosla, Ms. Moha Paranjpe, Advocates for Respondent No. 4 (Microsoft). Mr. Debopriyo Moulik and Ms. Shweta Chabbra, Advocates for R-10 Mr. Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Advocate Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:26.04.2023 17:19:50 W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 Page 1 of 88

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Mrs X v. Union of India

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (linked Case Law): India

Decision Date: Apr 26, 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible
Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Blocking or Filtering of Information
Declaratory Relief
Injunction, Order, or Motion Granted

Keywords

Digital Rights
Pornography
Privacy

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Court Name: Delhi High Court

Case Number: W.P.(CRL)1505/2021

Case Summary: The Delhi High Court held that the intermediaries are required to remove all offending content from their platform in the case of Non-Consensual Intimate Images (NCII), and not just links to specific URLs provided by the users/victims. A woman had had explicit photographs of her posted online by a third party and had been unsuccessful in various attempts to have the images removed. The Court highlighted the damage the posting of NCIIs can cause and how victims being required to search the internet for new uploads of these images for the purposes of requesting their removal can cause trauma. The Court held that the Indian legislative framework required that intermediaries make “reasonable effort” to ensure that their users do not post content that does not belong to them or is obscene, and that intermediaries must apply technology to ensure that the repost of offending images are removed.

Case Significance: This case highlights the obligations and responsibilities of intermediaries, including search engines and social media platforms, concerning the removal of Non-Consensual Intimate Images (NCII) content. The ruling is a balanced approach which protects the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and ensures that offensive and illegal content, such as NCII, is promptly taken down to safeguard the right to privacy and dignity of individuals. The Court emphasized that intermediaries have a social obligation to be proactive in de-indexing such links when they become aware of illegal content, thereby addressing the impact on victims’ mental and emotional well-being. Additionally, the Court clarified the due diligence requirements for different types of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act and Rules, ensuring that they fulfil their responsibilities without infringing citizens’ constitutional rights.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Related Caselaw (self)

India

Collection

CIPIT
Columbia

Date Updated: Oct 29, 2023

Primary Documents

Mrs X v. Union of India.pdf
english
Download View