The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of intermediaries to take effective measures to prevent the hosting of child pornographic content on their platforms, as well as the use of Artificial Intelligence and other tools to combat the spread of such content.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The learned counsel for the parties were heard through videoconferencing.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent nos. 2 to 4 to remove webpages as are mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the petition.

3. The petitioner is a young woman. She states that in the year 2012, she was sixteen years old and was studying in a well-known School in Delhi. She came to be acquainted with a boy (hereafter "the Accused?), who was studying in the same class. And, within a short span of time she became very close friends with him. However, he was very possessive and would not permit her to talk to anyone else. On several occasions he had snatched her phone and read all her messages. She alleges that the accused started emotionally blackmailing her and compelled her to send her intimate photographs to him. He threatened that if she didn?t, he would commit suicide. She succumbed to the said tactics and started sending him her "intimate pictures". She states that the relationship with the Accused was very abusive and therefore, she broke up her relations with him.

4. After completing her schooling, she secured admission in University of Bath, United Kingdom and in August, 2014 she proceeded to the UK for further studies. She alleges that the Accused did not stop pursuing her and used to call her about 50 to 70 times a day. She used to avoid his calls but he would persist by calling her from unknown numbers. She states that one day he landed up at her residence in Bath, U.K. and physically assaulted her. She alleges that he tried to throttle her; he placed a knife on her neck; and threatened to kill her. The petitioner was constrained to lodge a police complaint against the Accused. The matter was brought before the Magistrate Court of the Province of Bath, United Kingdom. The Accused pleaded guilty and on 04.01.2017, the Court passed an order restraining the accused from contacting the petitioner by any means including electronic, means for a period of two years, that is, till 04.01.2019. In addition, the Accused was also restrained from entering the City of Bath for a period of two years.

5. The Accused returned to India in the year 2017. The petitioner states that in the year 2019, she decided to proceed to Melbourne, Australia for higher studies. She claims that in October November 2019, she became aware that the Accused had posted her intimate pictures on various platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc. She claims that the photographs uploaded were the same that were sent by her to the Accused when she was a minor and the Accused had misused the said photographs and placed them on the internet.

6. The print-outs of the objectionable material are stated to have been filed with the present petition as Annexure B. But the said material is not on record. However, this Court is informed that the said material has been shared with the investigating agency. After becoming aware that the Accused had placed her photographs on the net, the petitioner filed a complaint against the Accused before the Special Cell, Cyber Crime Department, Delhi Police. Pursuant to the said complaint, an FIR bearing No. 129/2019 for commission of offence punishable under Section 67 67A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (hereafter ''the IT Act'') was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner''s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded.

7. The petitioner also sent notices to respondent nos. 2 to 4 through her advocates calling upon them to immediately remove the webpages containing her objectionable photographs. She contends that despite forwarding the same, the said webpages/URLs were not removed from the platforms provided by the respondent nos. 2 to 4. The petitioner has mentioned forty such URLs (on the platform under the control of respondent no. 2 Facebook Inc). She has also mentioned nine URLs on the platform www.yout