(ii) Further, while the channels that were impugned earlier in the suit by the Plaintiffs are being taken down pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, new channels by adding some prefixes or suffixes or by making small modifications in the names of the channels continue to be created. Accordingly, ld. counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that the identity of the persons who are disseminating the infringing materials on these channels ought to be disclosed, so that the Plaintiffs can avail of their remedies against the said persons. 11. On behalf of Telegram, Mr. Sibal, ld. Senior Counsel, submits that: (i) The interim arrangement which is already in place directing Telegram to take down the impugned channels is sufficient to protect the interest of the Plaintiffs. (ii) As per the Privacy Policy of Telegram, Clause 8.3 is clear that until and unless a person is expected to be a terror suspect, the disclosure of the subscriber information cannot be made. The said clause reads as under: “8.3. Law Enforcement Authorities If Telegram receives a court order that confirms you're a terror suspect, we may disclose your IP address and phone number to the relevant authorities. So far, this has never happened. When it does, we will include it in a semi-annual transparency report published at: https://t.me/transparency.” (iii) He further relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1, paragraphs 310 and 328, to argue that unless and until a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 6 of 51