The establishment of the SAHYOG portal facilitates efficient cooperation between law enforcement and social media platforms for data requests and compliance monitoring.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. On the last date of hearing i.e. 13th November, 2024 it was submitted by Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, ld. CGSC that some time would be required for the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) to determine the manner in which they would like to coordinate with the social media platforms for dealing with requests from Law Enforcement Agencies of the Country. The Court on the said date, considered the position of the MHA and directed it to file a status report by the next date of hearing.

3. Pursuant to the directions passed on the last date of hearing, a status report dated 10th December, 2024 has been handed over by the MHA under the signatures of Mr. Rahul Kant Sahu, Deputy General Manager, I4C, MHA. The said status report has been submitted on behalf of the MHA in coordination with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). The Court has perused the said report and the same has been taken on record.

4. It is stated in the said report that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) is an Agency under the MHA. It is the nodal agency dealing with cyber crime complaints and for coordination with all the intermediaries. The I4C has given data relating to the number of cyber crime complaints reported on the National Cyber Reporting Platform (‘NCRP’) and the type of crimes which are being foreseen by the I4C. The status report further sets out various provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2021 and relevant Rules as also the obligations of the intermediaries. Some of the issues of I4C, which have been pointed out by the Nodal Officers of States and UTs, have been highlighted in paragraph 14 of the report. The relevant portion of the report is set out as under:

“14. During the meeting dated 22.10.2024, the following key issues were pointed out by the Nodal Officers of all States/UTs faced by them with IT intermediaries in regard to data requests:

i) IT intermediaries insist on FIR to provide data. However, there are number of instances in which for preventive action data requests have to be made.

ii) In matters of cybercrime where offences are committed using VPNs and proxy servers, IT intermediaries often insist on data requests being processed through the MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) channel. For example, most hoax threats on social media and bomb emails have been made using VPNs

iii) Delayed response from IT Intermediaries ranging from 15 days to 1 month in responding to the data requests has been a current problem. There is also undue delay in case of emergency requests. (A copy of letter dated 23.10.2024 issued by Office of the Superintendent of Police, Police Head Quarters, UT Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, is attached herewith and marked as Annexure R-2).

iv) Each IT intermediary has its own distinct portal for processing data requests, often requiring LEAs to create separate login IDs and follow complex, lengthy procedures, which complicates the process of raising requests efficiently. While cyber cells may have the capability to manage these requests, local police stations encounter challenges in doing so. Such an arrangement also does not permit accountability and compliance monitoring. LEAs wanted a single portal for data requests in which all IT intermediaries are onboarded & requests made through it.

v) There are no designated nodal officers for raising requests, which complicates communication. In many cases, grievance officers are based abroad and do not respond to emails. Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) have requested that foreign intermediaries providing services in India