Digital intermediaries are statutorily exempt from liability for third-party content. They are not required to adjudicate the veracity or defamatory nature of online publications until presented with a specific court order or government directive, as writ jurisdiction is not the forum for determining factual disputes or private claims.

JUDGMENT :

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners who are the managerial employees of M/s. Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd., a news and current affairs content broadcasting channel in India. The grievance highlighted by the petitioners in this writ petition is against certain contents of the publications made by 6^th and 7^th respondents through the social media platforms, operated and managed by respondents 3 to 5 herein, which according to the petitioners, contain certain news items, which are defamatory in nature. It is also the case of the petitioners that, despite being brought to the notice of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, no actions are taken by them, against the respondents 6 and 7 or remove the said contents. The publication of the news items of the said nature, are even now continuing and according to the petitioners, the respondents 1 to 5 are bound to take necessary steps to remove the aforesaid contents from the online platforms or otherwise, block the access of the public to the said content. It is also their grievance that, inaction on the part of the respondents are amounting to violation of the Constitutional rights of the petitioners guaranteed under 21 of the Constitution of India and the same also violates various provisions of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1955, Information Technology Act, 2000 and the various Rules framed under the said enactments.

2. The reliefs sought by the petitioners in the writ petition are as follows:-

A To issue a writ of mandamus or such other Writ or direction to the Respondents No.1 & 2 to administrate the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Information Technology Intermediary guidelines and Digital Media Ethics code, Rule 2021 in India.

B The business of the Respondent No.3 to 5 is against the Petitioner’s Constitutional rights and is contrary to Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and against the Program Code of the Information Technology Intermediary guidelines and Digital Media Ethics code, Rule 2021. So the Respondent No.1 & 2 to be directed to remove the channels who do not comply with the regulations.

C The Respondents No.1 & 2 are required to direct all the Digital Media including youtube.com operating in India to remove the contents published against the Petitioners and which are contrary to the Article 19(2), and Information Technology Intermediary guidelines and Digital Media Ethics code, Rule 2021.

D The Respondent No.1 & 2 have made huge financial gain by the illegal broadcasting of the contents against the Petitioner and the Petitioner lost their Fundamental Right to do any Job as envisaged by the Constitution of India. Therefore, in order to recover the lost Fundamental Right of the Petitioners and as a punishment for the illegal business conducted by the Respondents No.3 to 7 in India is to pay an amount as compensation to the Petitioners of Rs. 10 Crores INR each.

E Respondents No.1 & 2 to ensure that the Digital Media and Intermediaries operating in India comply with Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics code, Rule 2021 and in accordance with Section 5 of the Cable Network Act, 1995 as its program