Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2806 freedom of speech and expression. The decision to, thus, not incorporate auto-filtering/auto-moderation by intermediaries, was a deliberate and informed decision that was taken after weighing all pros and cons. Additionally, Rule 3(9) of the Draft Rules which were released on 24.12.2018 had provided for the intermediary to deploy technology-based automated tools or appropriate mechanisms, with appropriate controls, for proactively identifying and removing or disabling access to unlawful information or content. However, this Rule was deleted post the consultative process, and pro-active filtering of any form is limited to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) as under Rule 4(4) of the IT Rules. Further, this Rule limits the obligation to actively filter to an ―endeavour‖ to employ such measures, and is non-binding in nature. e. Courts should refrain from interfering with rules and regulations that are framed by the Government, and the same has been reiterated by the Supreme Court time and again in various judgements such as Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289 and Dr. Ashwini Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 585. Further, interference cannot be made in a vacuum and only on the basis of the desirability of solutions. f. Reliance has been placed on MySpace Inc. v. Supercassettes Industries Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382 to submit that the safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act demonstrates that the Parliament was mindful of the diligence that can be carried out by the intermediary. However, obligating intermediaries with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:26.04.2023 17:19:50 W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 Page 59 of 88