Automated responses from intermediaries can create a misleading impression of finality in grievance redressal; however, statutory appeals must be based on actual decisions. The court emphasized the need for intermediaries to modify automated replies to avoid unnecessary litigation.

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 25089/2024

1. The present application has been filed by the Petitioners seeking a direction to Respondent No. 2 to restore its Instagram handle “@bazaarindia” (‘IG account’). The Petitioner No. 1’s IG account was disabled by Respondent No. 2 on 15th March, 2024 and its appeal against the said action was rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide e-mail dated 27th March, 2024. In these facts, the Petitioner filed the writ petition aggrieved by the actions of Respondent No. 2.

2. This Court vide interlocutory order dated 04th April, 2024 granted liberty to the Petitioner No. 1 herein to avail its remedy of appeal against Respondent No. 2’s decisions dated 15th March 2024 and 27th March, 2024 before the Grievance Appellate Committee constituted by Respondent No. 1 under Rule 3-A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (‘Rules 2021’).

3. In accordance with the said order, the Petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal on 5th April, 2024, however, the Grievance Appellate Committee vide its order dated 15th April, 2024 rejected the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner No. 1 has not approached the Grievance Officer, appointed by Respondent No. 2 (first round of appeal).

4. The Petitioner No. 1, thereafter on 16th April, 2024 filed a complaint, (Bearing no. 751327807169719) with the Grievance Officer of Respondent No. 2 impugning the decision dated 15th March, 2024, which complaint as per the Petitioner was rejected on 17th April, 2024 by the Grievance Officer with a two-line response received on e-mail.

5. On the basis of the said email reply dated 17th April, 2024 of the Grievance Officer, Petitioner No. 1 has filed a fresh appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee on 17th April, 2024, which is pending adjudication till date (second round of appeal). The said appeal is numbered as 1197/2024 and the Petitioners are aggrieved by its non-adjudication.

6. Respondent No. 2 entered appearance on 30th April, 2024 and stated that the email reply dated 17th April, 2024 impugned in appeal no. 1197/2024 is not the decision of the Grievance Officer but an automated response from the system. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, however, offered to facilitate the matter and assisted the Petitioner No. 1 to file a fresh complaint with the Grievance Officer on 30th April, 2024. Accordingly, a fresh complaint, (Bearing no. 442302294831869) was registered by Petitioner No. 1 on 30th April, 2024 and Respondent No. 2 undertook to have the same decided expeditiously.

7. The matter was taken up for hearing today and at the hearing learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 handed over the decision of the Grievance Officer to the complaint registered on 30th April, 2024. The said decision is recorded in email dated 30th April, 2024, which reads as under:

“From: FB GO India <fbgoindia@meta.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 6:34:27 PM

To: himanshu sinha@aajtak.com <himanshu.sinha@aajtak.com>

Subject: Indian Grievance Officer Complaint #442302294831869

Hi

We have received your request seeking to reinstate your Instagram account. As a user of Instagram, you have agreed to our Terms of Use, which states that users are prohibited from taking any action on Instagram that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law. When we receive a proper claim of intellectual property rights infringement, we remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing content. We also terminate the account of repeat infringers in approp