How has the Indian judiciary addressed social media and online content regulation cases?

 How has the Indian judiciary addressed social media and online content regulation cases?

The Indian judiciary has been actively addressing social media and online content regulation cases in recent years. Here are some examples:

1. WhatsApp Traceability: In 2019, the Indian government proposed a traceability requirement for WhatsApp messages to curb the spread of fake news and hate speech. WhatsApp challenged this proposal in court, arguing that it violated users' privacy and encryption standards. In 2021, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of WhatsApp, stating that the traceability requirement was unconstitutional and violated privacy rights.
2. Twitter and Intermediary Liability: In 2021, the Indian government issued new guidelines for social media platforms, including Twitter, regarding content regulation and intermediary liability. Twitter challenged these guidelines in court, arguing that they violated free speech and due process. The Delhi High Court ruled that the policies were valid, but Twitter could not be held liable for third-party content unless it was aware of the illegal nature of the content.
3. Online Defamation: The Indian judiciary has also been addressing online defamation cases. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that social media platforms could be held liable for defamatory content posted by their users. However, the court also stated that platforms should not be held responsible if they take steps to remove such content upon being notified.

Case: Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India 2015

• This is one of the landmark judgments related to online defamation in India. The case dealt with the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive messages through communication services. Shreya Singhal, a law student, brought up the case and argued that the provision violated the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
• In 2015, the Indian Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, holding that it was unconstitutional and violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The court observed that the provision was vague and overbroad and had a chilling effect on free speech. The court also held that any reasonable restrictions did not save the condition of free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
• The judgment in the Shreya Singhal case was a significant victory for free speech and online freedom in India. It recognized that online expression deserves the same protection as offline expression and that the government cannot use vague and overbroad provisions to restrict free speech online. The judgment has been cited in several subsequent cases dealing with online speech and intermediary liability and is considered a landmark in Indian jurisprudence.

The Indian judiciary has been essential in regulating the country's social media and online content. The courts have been balancing the need for free speech and privacy with preventing the spread of hate speech, fake news, and other harmful content.

Vakilkaro is a Best Legal Services Providers Company, which provides Civil, Criminal & Corporate Laws Services and Registration Services like Private Limited Company Registration, LLP Registration, Nidhi Company Registration, Microfinance Company Registration, Section 8 Company Registration, NBFC Registration, Trademark Registration, 80G & 12A Registration, Niti Aayog Registration, FSSAI Registration, and other related Legal Services.

Contact India's best Legal Firm, Vakilkaro, today. You can give us a call at +919828123489 or may write an Email also at help@vakilkaro.co.in. We are here to serve you 24/7.

"Happy Customer serves the company success"- we aim to achieve this through our legal services."