Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2806 d. Reliance upon Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India (supra) is misplaced as the directions therein were rendered to “Google Ads” which is completely different from Google Search. Furthermore, directions were rendered for constitution of a Nodal Agency to report the content to the intermediaries who were then obligated to act upon the same. Even Order dated 13.04.2017 in the said matter observes that there ought to be no curtailment of access to information and knowledge, and that a balance has to be struck. Moreover, other Judgements of the Supreme Court, such as Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, have categorically observed that any direction that restricts speech over the internet has to be proportionate and the least restrictive measure needs to be employed. e. The IT Rules provide for a specific grievance redressal mechanism for reporting prima facie sexually explicit content under Rule 3(2). Rule 3(2)(c) clarifies that the mechanism for receipt of complaints requires provision of details qua specific communication links. Thus, directing the intermediaries to proactively filter and remove content is outside the purview of the IT Rules and entails casting of additional or exceptional onus on the intermediaries. The difference in obligations of an intermediary, which is what a search engine is, and a significant social media intermediary (SSMI) whose duties are enumerated under Rule 4 demonstrates that absence of proactive filtering on the part of an intermediary was a welldeliberated decision taken by the Legislature. Even Rule 4 does not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:26.04.2023 17:19:50 W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 Page 50 of 88