Read Time: 07 minutes

In a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction to Meta Platforms (formerly known as Facebook Inc.) to remove any explicit and illegal content from its websites within 24 hours, Meta has deposed before Madhya Pradesh High Court that it is improper to ask Meta to act as a super-censor.

In its affidavit, Meta has argued that "compelling it to monitor for and adjudicate the lawfulness of content on the Facebook and Instagram Services is infeasible, especially given the billions of users and billions of pieces of content posted and shared on those services each day.”

Importantly, Meta has pressed that Indian law is unequivocal that intermediaries cannot be compelled to proactively monitor their platforms for unlawful content, and only have a duty to remove or disable access to unlawful content upon receiving “actual knowledge” through a Court order or appropriate Government direction.

Meta has pointed out that Facebook Service and Instagram Service are platforms wherein third parties upload content of their choosing. It has averred that “Meta is neither the author nor the publisher of content on the Facebook or Instagram Services, nor does it have any role in initiating, selecting the receiver of, and/or selecting or modifying such content.”

Further, stating that the Supreme Court is already deliberating over the issue raised in the present Petition, i.e., the regulation of content on online platforms (OTTs and intermediaries) through judicially framed guidelines, Meta has prayed the High Court to defer hearing the instant matter.

It is significant to be noted here that WhatsApp has also filed a separate affidavit in the matter on a similar line opposing the maintainability of the PIL on grounds similar to what has been averred in the affidavit filed by Meta.

Backdrop of the matter

Essentially, a PIL plea had been filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Twitter for allegedly displaying/hosting obscene, unregulated, uncertified, sexually explicit, and legally restricted content.

The petitioners had sought a direction to these platforms to remove "explicit and illegal content... from [its] websites" immediately and remove "any such alleged content in near future within a time span of 24 hours of its upload".

Meta in its reply has challenged the maintainability of the petition mainly on three grounds. Firstly, Meta has said that the petition has become infructuous by the introduction of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (2021 IT Rules") which prescribe due diligence guidelines for social media intermediaries and regulate content on their platforms.

Meta has asserted that Petitioner's request to direct Meta to identify and remove allegedly unlawful content on its platforms if granted, would contravene Section 79 of the IT Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's precedents.

Secondly, Meta has also alleged that Court's writ jurisdiction has been improperly invoked against it because Meta is a private entity, and not a "State" or "Other Authority" of the Government under Article 12 of the Constitution, and it is improper to seek reliefs in the nature of Mandamus in absence of any statutory duty.

And lastly, Meta has pressed that the Facebook Service and Instagram Service are platforms wherein third parties upload content of their choosing and compelling it to monitor for and adjudicate the lawfulness of content on the Facebook and Instagram Services would otherwise be infeasible.

Case Title: MAATR Foundation v. Union of India & Ors