Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33879
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
M/S FRESHTOHOME FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/9711/2020
SRI.ANEESH K.M, SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SRI. ADARSH KUMAR, SRI. BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM, SRI. DILEEP CHANDRAN, SRI. SHASHANK DEVAN
The court affirmed that authorities under the Information Technology Act have the duty to act on defamation claims promptly to mitigate harm.
Headnote:
Defamation - Writ Petition - Information Technology Act - Section 66 - The court directed the government to address a defamation complaint, highlighting the empowerment of authorities under the IT Act to take timely actions to mitigate harm.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged in e-commerce, claimed defamation through false news disseminated online, particularly through a YouTube channel. The petitioner sought intervention to address this issue through appropriate referrals to the concerned authorities.
Issues: Whether the 5th respondent was obligated to refer the complaint to the 4th respondent for action under the Information Technology Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, the Secretary had the authority to respond to defamation complaints, thus fulfilling the requirement for appropriate action without needing a prior referral.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing immediate action on the complaint.
JUDGMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 5th day of May, 2020 Petitioner claims that it is one of the front runners in e-
commerce relating to meat, fish and other essential food products. In recognition of its services, it has even been permitted to continue its services during the period of Covid-19. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns an alleged fale and defamatory news that spread in respect of its functioning through internet and other electronic media especially through a You Tube online News Channel called i2i News.
2. Petitioner lodged Ext.P5 complaint before the 5th respondent. It is alleged that spreading of news of this particular nature can be blocked only by the 4th respondent CERT India and in terms of the procedures prescribed, the fourth respondent can act on a complaint only if the same is forwarded to them by the 5th respondent. The prayer made by the learned counsel Adv. Sri.
Shashank Devan on behalf of the petitioner is that in the circumstances a direction to the 5th respondent to make an appropriate reference of Ext.P5 complaint to the 4th respondent so as to take action would suffice.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that by virtue of notification issued under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act , the Secretary of the IT Department who has arrayed as 5th respondent herein himself is now empowered to take action on such complaints. In the circumstances and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct 5th respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 at the earliest and initiate appropriate action forthwith. Needless to say that the 5th respondent shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law without any further delay so as to cause minimal harm to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXTS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 25-04-2020 DISPATCHED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 22-04-2020 FILED BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT 2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXHIBIT P2; DATED 22-04-2020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE PETITION DATED 22-04-2020 FILED BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION , THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXHIBIT P3; DATED 22-04-2020 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27-02-2003 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-10-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP (C) NO. 28336/2019 EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-11-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP (C) NO. 31721/2019
