W.P.(C) 1227/2024

Page 1 of 8

$~46

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 1227/2024

MOHAMMAD HAMIM AND ANR.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.

Colin

Gonslaves,

Senior

Advocate with Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur,

Advocate

versus

FACEBOOK INDIA ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Tejas Karia, Mr. Varun

Pathak, Mr. Shashank Mishra, Mr.

Shyamlal

Anand,

Mr.

Vishesh

Sharma, Ms. Ramayni Sood and Mr.

Rahl Unnikrishnan, Advocates for

Meta Platforms Inc. for Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2

Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Ms.

Nidhi

Mittal

and

Ms.

Gauri

Goburdhun, Advocates for R-3/UOI

% Date of Decision: 30^th January, 2024

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T(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

Digitally Signed

By:Rashmi Dabas

Signing Date:31.01.2024

11:18:36

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 1227/2024

Page 2 of 8

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

Digitally Signed

By:Rashmi Dabas

Signing Date:31.01.2024

11:18:36

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 1227/2024

Page 3 of 8

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 Int