SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Ajit Mohan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Legislative Assembly National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1088 of 2020
Decided On : 08-07-2021
Facebook - Information - Fake news - One form of digital platforms are intermediaries that claim to be providing a platform for exchange of ideas without any contribution of their own - It is their say that they are not responsible for all that transpires on their platform; though on complaints being made, they do remove offensive content based on their internal guidelines - By very reason of the platform they provide, their influence extends over populations across borders - Facebook is one such corporation - Results in a Paradoxical outcome where extremist views are peddled into the mainstream, thereby spreading misinformation - Established independent democracies are seeing effect of such ripples across the globe and are concerned - Whether there is a faulty architecture of such intermediary platforms and whether kind of free, liberal debate which they sought to encourage has itself become a casualty, defeating the very objective of providing that platform – Held, position is no different in civil proceedings where considerable time is spent at interim stage when the objective should be only to safeguard the rights of parties by a short order and spend the time on the substantive proceedings instead which could bring an end to the lis rather than on interim arrangement. In fact, interim orders in civil proceedings are of no precedential value - This is reason it is said that we have become courts of interim proceedings where final proceedings conclude after ages- Only for another round to start in civil proceedings of execution – Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
| INDEX | ||
| S. No. | Contents | Page No. |
| 1. | Prolegomenon | 2 |
| 2. | The Factual Context | 10 |
| 3. | The Submissions | 33 |
| (a) | The Privilege Issue | 35 |
| (b) | Privileges, Free Speech and Privacy | 73 |
| (c) | Legislative Competence | 89 |
| 4. | Recent Developments | 129 |
| 5. | The Opinion | 135 |
| (a) | On the issue of Privilege | 143 |
| (b) | On Privileges and Fundamental Rights | 160 |
| (c) | On Legislative Competence | 164 |
| 6. | Conclusion | 185 |
| 7. | Postscript | 187 |
Prolegomenon: [“Preface” See A.M. Singhvi et. al. The Law of Emergency Powers - Comparative Common Law Perspectives (Springer, 2020)]
1. The technological age has produced digital platforms - not like the railway platforms where trains were regulated on arrival and departure. These digital platforms can be imminently uncontrollable at times and carry their own challenges. One form of digital platforms are the intermediaries that claim to be providing a platform for exchange of ideas without any contribution of their own. It is their say that they are not responsible for all that transpires on their platform; though on complaints being made, they do remove offensive content based on their internal guidelines. The power and potentiality of these intermediaries is vast, running across borders. These are multinational corporations with large wealth and influence at their command. By the very reason of the platform they provide, their influence extends over populations across borders. Facebook is one such corporation.
2. A testament to the wide-ranging services which Facebook offers is the fact that it has about 2.85 billion monthly active users as of March, 2021.1 [Facebook, Press Release, Facebook Reports 1st Quarter 2021 Results (2021)]. This is over 1/3rd of the total population of this planet. In the national context, Facebook is the most popular social media platform in India with about 270 million registered users. Such vast powers must necessarily come with responsibility. Entities like Facebook have to remain accountable to those who entrust them with such power. While Facebook has played a crucial role in enabling free speech by providing a voice to the voiceless and a means to escape state censorship, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it has simultaneously become a platform for disruptive messages, voices and ideologies. The successful functioning of a liberal democracy can only be ensured when citizens are able to make informed decisions. Such decisions have to be made keeping in mind a plurality of perspectives and ideas. The information explosion in the digital age is capable of creating new challenges that are insidiously modulating the debate on issues where opinions can be vastly divided. Thus, while social media, on the one hand, is enhancing equal and open dialogue between citizens and policy makers; on the other hand, it has become a tool in the hands of various interest groups who have recognised its disruptive potential. This results in a Paradoxical outcome where extremist views are peddled into the mainstream, thereby spreading misinformation. Established independent democracies are seeing the effect of such ripples across the globe and are concerned. Election and voting processes, the very foundation of a democratic government, stand threatened by social media manipulation. This has given rise to significant debates about the increasing concentration of power in platforms like Facebook, more so as they are said to employ business models that are privacy-intrusive and attention soliciting.2 [UNESCO, Concept Note, Media for Democracy, Journalism and Elections in times of Misinformation, (2019)]. The effect on a stable society can be cataclysmic with citizens being ‘polarized and parlayzed’ by such “debates” dividing the society vertically. Less informed individual
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.