Point of law: is mandatory that a request has to be received only through the Nodal Officer of the respective State or the government department specifically designated to send a request for blocking the access of a computer resource

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, whose shoulder is heavily burdened with the responsibility of mainly protecting the right of a citizen guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, is itself before this Court with inwardly pain due to indirect/direct attack on it by some of malefactors. Even some occupying high positions and Constitutional posts are not restraining themselves in committing the same mistake. Since the month of April, 2020, this Court has noticed that a new trend has developed in the State of Andhra Pradesh to abuse the High Court and its Judges on different sites of social media and even in the interviews given to electronic media. It is well-known that Judges are not having any platform to come and say about their integrity, sincerity etc. even in a case they are otherwise abused or insulted. It is true that under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in a case of willful disobedience/insult to the Court, one can be dealt with; but the fact remains that penal provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act are though enough to deter persons, who have some faith in the system; but not enough to deter such malefactors in making unwarranted allegations against the Judiciary or Judges. The person occupying high posts are indulging in waging war against the judicial system in the State of Andhra Pradesh oblivious of the fact that even their entity is existed since there is democratic system in our country. In a democratic State if such war is initiated against the judicial system by persons holding high positions, certainly it will create unnecessary doubt in the mind of citizen against the judicial system, which may cripple entire system. It need not to be elaborated that in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in general, people are well disciplined and law abiding. They have got faith in the system. However, it appears that the petitioner is being attacked by some corner with some oblique motive.

2. The petitioner, i.e. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati, taking decision on administrative side, has preferred to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily with a view to protect its entity from the attack of some of antisocial elements in our State.

3. The present writ petition was filed with a prayer for issuance of writ of an appropriate writ or order or direction, particularly, writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus:

“(A) To declare the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in failing to act progressively and to take necessary action and to invoke the appropriate provisions of law, as mandated, pursuant to the registration of FIR No. 16/2020, dated 16.04.2020, and FIR No. 17/2020, dated 18.04.2020 on the file of Respondent No. 6 against the said offenders, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and in violation of provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and Information Technology Act, 2000.

(B) To declare the action of the Respondent Nos. 7-9 and 19, more particularly, Respondent Nos. 9 and 19, in failing to act against the Respondent Nos. 10 to 18, where under social networking platforms are being utilized and abused for creating ill-will and hatred against the petitioner herein in the mind and eye of the Public, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of provisions of IPC, Cr.P.C. and I.T. Act, 2000, thereby securing protection to the Judiciary.

(C) To declare the action of the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 and 19 in failing to frame guidelines for the intermediaries in compliance of Section 79(2)(c) read with Section 87(2)(zg) of the Information Technology Act which authorizes the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 and 19 to prescribe guidelines to intermediaries, thereby securing certain protection to the Judiciary.

(D) Consequently, in the alternative, transfer the investigation in FIR No. 16/2020 dated 16.04.2020 and FIR No. 17/2020 dated