Introduction:

The Delhi High Court recently declined to issue an order directing the Union Government to restrain Facebook India from allegedly promoting “hateful and harmful content” against the Rohingya community. In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Rohingya refugees, Mohammad Hamim and Kawsar Mohammed, the court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, emphasized the existence of a robust grievance redressal mechanism under the Information Technology Rules, 2021. The petitioners sought to halt the use of Facebook’s algorithms, accusing them of encouraging hate speech and violence against the Rohingya community.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Colin Gonslaves, argued for an immediate halt to Facebook’s algorithmic features promoting alleged hate speech. They sought a direction to Facebook to cease the use of virality and ranking algorithms contributing to hate speech and violence against minority communities. Facebook, represented by Mr. Arvind P. Datar, contended that the IT Rules of 2021 provided a comprehensive three-tier system to address offensive posts, including hate speech. The social media platform urged the court to dismiss the plea, emphasizing the efficacy of its guidelines.

Court’s Judgement:

The Delhi High Court, acknowledging the legal obligations of social media platforms, declined to pass an order against Facebook. It emphasized the presence of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, and the grievance redressal mechanism provided therein. The court stated that the petitioners could utilize the existing machinery for redressal instead of invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226. It noted that the reliefs sought against Facebook were not maintainable, as there was no allegation of failure by authorities to abide by statutory obligations under the IT Rules 2021.