Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2806 redistribution of NCII requires a more nuanced approach. ― 57. In such circumstances, a reading of the provisions that bestow an obligation upon an intermediary cannot be done in isolation and has to be conducted in a purposive manner. The principle of purposive interpretation focuses on interpretation of a provision in light of the purpose for which it was enacted. As has been stated by the MEITY itself, the IT Rules, which increases the burden upon intermediaries and widens their scope of losing their safe harbour under Section 79, were notified for ensuring open, safe, trusted and accountable Internet. The recent 2022 Amendment Rules also demonstrate the increase in the obligations of the intermediaries which is explicit in how intermediaries are now required to expend “reasonable efforts” in ensuring that its users do not host, publish, display, share, etc. any offending material defined under Rule 3(1)(b) instead of merely “informing” the users about the same, which was the case earlier. Search engines being an intermediary cannot hide behind the argument that they merely provide access to third-party websites as due diligence exercised as per Rule 3 is applicable to all intermediaries. 58. However, at this juncture, this Court finds to necessary to reiterate that in the instant case, the lackadaisical approach of the Respondents has come to light after a valid Court order has been rendered regarding takedown of the offending content. There is substance in the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that the intermediaries cannot take shelter of the decision of the Apex Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (supra) for the reason that an effective Court order regarding takedown of the unlawful content has already been rendered. Further, the IT Rules have now come into place which was not the case when the decision in Shreya Singhal v. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:26.04.2023 17:19:50 W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 Page 81 of 88