JUDGMENT(ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to monitor and suspend the hate speech and harmful content that originates in India from its platform i.e., ‘Facebook’ and is directed towards the Rohingya community, both in India and elsewhere. In addition, the Petitioners seek a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to halt the use of its virality and ranking algorithms, which encourages hate speech and violence against minority communities. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioners at the beginning of the hearing has also handed over an application for amending the petition to the extent of issuance of a direction to Respondent No. 3, i.e., Union of India, to take steps in accordance with law for restraining Facebook from, inter alia, promoting hate speech covered under Section 153-A(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and more particularly against the Rohingya community.

2. At the outset, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been wrongly impleaded and the correct description of the said Respondents is Meta Platforms Inc. The said statement is taken on record.

3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners states that the present petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India for seeking protection of the Right to Life of the members of Rohingya community in Delhi and throughout the country who face violence as a result of dissemination of hate remarks targeting them on the basis of their ethnicity and religion on the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2’s platform i.e., Facebook. He states that though the hate speech originates elsewhere, it gets magnified by the algorithms of the Facebook so that the hate speech goes viral in India and abroad. He states that illustratively, the Petitioners have set out at paragraph 19 of this petition, the inflammatory posts which have been uploaded on Facebook against the Rohingya community.

4. He contends that Facebook promotes hate speech as a part of strategy to increase its revenue. He submits that hate speech is a crime in India under Section 153-A(1)(b) of IPC and even though Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 promises to make amends, it has failed to do so with the objective of enhancing its revenue by magnifying such hate speech. He states that the Islamophobic posts constitute hate speech and is a serious crime under Sections 153-B and 500 of IPC.

5. He states that the issue of spreading and magnifying hate post as a model for generating revenue by Facebook is well-established and for this purpose he refers to reports and documents dating back to the year 2019 and until 2022. He refers to the report published by Amnesty International in the year 2022, which specifically refers to the spread of misinformation causing harm to the Rohingya community. He states that the Facebook’s admission in the said report disentitles them from protection under Section 79 Act of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’).

6. He states that it is the assertion of the Petitioners that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in delivering content through recommendation services such as suggestions, actively promotes hate content. He states that the reactionary action of taking down posts after they are reported is not sufficient. He states that even when the harmful content is reported there is no guarantee that it will be taken down and is often found restored.

7. He states that Respondent No. 3, i.e., Union of India, issued guidelines for communal harmony in the year 2008 and strict action against hate speech is enlisted, more specifically at paragraph 3.13 therein.

8. He states that the present writ petition seeking enforcement of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution is maintainable against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore v.