Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS)
DIPAK MISRA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
SABU MATHEW GEORGE – Petitioners
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.341 of 2008
Decided On : 19-09-2016
PC-PNDT Act Compliance - Technology Companies - PC-PNDT Act, Section 22 - Summary: The court addressed the compliance of technology companies with the PC-PNDT Act, specifically Section 22, and their obligations to block and restrict content related to sex determination. The court emphasized the need for auto-blocking prohibited content and the companies' responsibility to ensure compliance with the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed the compliance of technology companies with the PC-PNDT Act, specifically Section 22, and their obligations to block and restrict content related to sex determination. The court emphasized the need for auto-blocking prohibited content and the companies' responsibility to ensure compliance with the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the technology companies had agreed to comply with the law and take steps to restrict and block content related to sex determination. The court also emphasized the need for auto-blocking prohibited content and the companies' responsibility to ensure compliance with the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the compliance of technology companies with the PC-PNDT Act, specifically Section 22, and their obligations to block and restrict content related to sex determination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for auto-blocking prohibited content and the companies' responsibility to ensure compliance with the Act.
Final Decision: The matter was listed for final disposal on 16th November, 2016, and the competent authority of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, was directed to file an affidavit.
ORDER :
1. In pursuance of our orders dated 5th July, 2016, and 25th July, 2016, an affidavit has been filed by the competent authority of the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India. It is submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India that there was a meeting with the three software companies, namely, Google India, Yahoo ! India and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. and, prior to the meeting, the companies were asked to respond to the following questions:-
“(a) Whether respondents feel obligated to comply with the provisions of PC-PNDT Act, especially section 22 of the Act as directed by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 28.01.2015?
(b) Whether Respondents are ready to publish a “Warning Message” on top of search result, as and when any user in India submits any “key word searches” in search engines, which relates to pre conception and pre natal deermination of sex or sex selection?
(c) Whether Respondents are ready to block “auto-complete” failure for “key word” searches which relates to pre-conception and/or pre-natal determination of sex or sex selection?
(d) Whether the words/phrases relating to pre-conception and pre natal determination of sex or sex selection to be provided and regularly updated by the Government for the 'key word search' or shall it be the onus of the Respondents providing search engine facilities?
(e) Whether it is feasible for the Respondents to place this Hon'ble Court order dated 28.01.2015 on their respective Home Page(s), instead of placing them on Terms of Service (TOS) pages?
(f) What is the suggested timeline to incorporate “Warning Message”, blocking of the “auto-complete” feature for key word search & related terms etc. relating to pre-conception and pre-natal determination of sex or sex selection?
(g) Any other information as Respondents would like to share?”
2. The respondents-Companies have submitted their replies to the Union of India, which have been brought by way of a chart as Annexure M1/4 to the affidavit filed by the said Ministry. We have already reproduced the questions posed by the Union of India. As we find from the chart, all the respondents have agreed to follow the law of this country and not to allow any advertisement or publish any content on their respective search engines.
3. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General has pointed out to the responses to the questions (a) to (g) in seriatim as submitted by the three Companies. We think it appropriate to reproduce the responses. They read thus:-
| Google India Pvt. Ltd. | Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. | Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd. |
| Yes (i) Stated to have taken all possible steps to ensure compliance with PC-PNDT Act. (Ref : Communication dated 19 July, 2016, Page No.43) (ii) Further submitted that the intent behind sec.22 of the PCPNDT Act is to expressly prohibit an advertisement that is a commercial communication and does not extend to other forms of content including “search results, videos, blogs or images” | Yes (i) Informed compliance with the mandate of the mandate of Section 22 of PC & NDT Act being the prohibition of advertisement in relation to conception and pre natal determination of sex or sex selection. (ii) Submitted that the prohibition does not, however extend to any content outside of advertisements such as algorithmic search content images, the auto-complete function and the related search function that are algorithmically/ organically populated. | Yes (i) Stated that their advertising policy prohibits advertising that promotes pre-conception/prenatal sex selection techniques (Ref: Communication 29th July 2016 page 78 no. reply.1 |
| Yes. Agrees to publish Warning Mes | ||
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
