Back
Moots of ISPs for Ignoring Orders on Jaya Bachchan Obscene Content
The has issued a stern warning to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that have failed to comply with its orders to remove obscene content involving actress and politician Jaya Bachchan. Expressing deep concern over the non-compliance, the court mooted the possibility of de-registering defaulting ISPs as a measure. The bench directed the and the to return with concrete instructions on how to enforce the earlier directives. The matter is now listed for further hearing on .
Background: The Jaya Bachchan Obscene Content Case
The case originates from a petition filed by Jaya Bachchan, a Member of Parliament and noted film actress, seeking the removal of explicit and obscene content that misused her name and image across various online platforms. The content, widely shared on social media and adult websites, was alleged to be defamatory and violative of her dignity. In earlier proceedings, the had passed specific orders directing ISPs to block and remove such material. However, the court was informed that several ISPs had failed to act on these directions, leading to the current contempt-like proceedings.
The issue gained urgency as the content continued to circulate, causing ongoing reputational harm. The court’s concern was not merely about a single celebrity but about the broader failure of intermediaries to adhere to judicial commands in cases involving and defamation.
Key Developments: Court’s Severe Observations
During the hearing before Justice Singh, the court expressed its frustration with the lackadaisical attitude of ISPs. The judge observed:
“The ISPs are not enforcing the court orders, they are not even listening to your directions. We need to see if they can be de-registered, then they shall be. They are not hearing, so we have to see what next. If it happens in one case, then it will be a in others.”
The court underscored the gravity of the situation by noting the nature of the content involved. Justice Singh added:
“It concerns me because it is pornographic content.”
The bench directed the counsel for MEITY and DoT to provide a clear roadmap for ensuring compliance with court orders, including the possibility of initiating proceedings against non-compliant ISPs under the , and relevant licence conditions. The court also queried whether any penal consequences could be imposed on the officers of defaulting ISPs.
Legal Analysis: Power to De-Register ISPs
The ’s suggestion to de-register ISPs raises important legal questions about the extent of judicial power over internet intermediaries. Under Indian law, ISPs are required to obtain licences from the DoT and are also subject to the framework under . While allows the government to block content on grounds of sovereignty and security, court orders for removal of specific content—especially in civil cases like defamation—are enforced through the or .
would be an extreme measure, effectively revoking the ISP’s licence to operate. This power lies primarily with the DoT, which issues unified access service licences. The court, however, can direct the DoT to take action if an ISP repeatedly flouts judicial orders. The hurdle lies in the due process: requires , an , and a finding of .
Moreover, the case highlights the tension between the of the IT Act and the duty of ISPs to obey court orders. provides immunity to intermediaries for third-party content, but this immunity is conditional on the intermediary complying with any court order to disable access. Persistent failure to comply can strip that immunity, exposing ISPs to direct liability and possible civil contempt.
The court’s observation that would act as a “” signals a shift towards stricter accountability for ISPs. This could incentivize ISPs to adopt proactive measures to track and remove judicially-flagged content, even in the absence of a government .
Impact on Legal Practice and ISP Accountability
For legal practitioners, this development is a reminder of the growing judicial expectation that ISPs must be more than passive conduits. Courts are increasingly willing to use contempt and to enforce compliance. Lawyers handling defamation or privacy cases involving online content may now cite this precedent to press for swifter action against recalcitrant ISPs.
The case also has implications for the ‘notice and takedown’ regime. Currently, many ISPs rely on automated mechanisms or downtiering of content. The ’s approach may push ISPs to maintain dedicated legal compliance teams to respond to court orders within tight timelines. Failure to do so could result in , which would be catastrophic for business.
Furthermore, the involvement of MEITY and DoT suggests that the court expects the executive to play a more active role in monitoring ISP compliance. The government bodies may need to lay down standard operating procedures for enforcement of content removal orders, possibly including penalties or suspension of licences for repeated default.
Conclusion: A Watershed Moment for Internet Regulation
The ’s threat to de-register non-compliant ISPs marks a significant moment in the evolving landscape of internet regulation in India. By directly linking the continued operation of ISPs to their obedience of judicial commands, the court has sent a clear message: digital platforms are not immune to coercive state action when they ignore legal directives.
The next hearing on will be closely watched to see whether MEITY and DoT propose a structured enforcement mechanism or leave the matter to ad-hoc contempt proceedings. Regardless, the case has already raised the stakes for ISPs across the country, compelling them to reassess their compliance frameworks. For the legal fraternity, it underscores the growing intersection of cyber law, , and in protecting individual dignity.
