Google Moves Delhi HC Seeking To Vacate Order Directing Removal Of Anonymous Posts Alleging Sexual Harassment

Google Inc has moved the Delhi High Court seeking to vacate an order which had directed the company to take down anonymous posts which made allegations of sexual harassment against artist Subodh Gupta as part of the #MeToo movement which began in 2018.

Google mentioned in its application to the court that the order to take down these anonymous posts would have what it called “a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression and also be against public interest”.

Google argued that modification of the high court is required because its search engine merely performs the task of indexing information which already exists on various websites, in response to a search query.

The company argued that such indexed information is already available on independent third party websites which are beyond the control of the Google search engine or supervision, since the company does not create, own or control any content on any third party website.

Google told the high court that it is neither the host, nor the publisher of the third party content indexed on the Google search engine.

The company pointed out that none of the media websites or websites of news agencies which were added as a party to the defamation suit, in which an interim order was passed in favor of artist Subodh Gupta.

Google’s application stated that “the present proceedings have been clearly initiated with a view to put an unreasonable restraint on the freedom of speech and expression on the internet as well as the freedom of the press”.

“It is settled law that in a case of alleged defamation, the threshold for considering the prima facie strength of granting an injunction, especially at the interim stage, has to be necessarily of a very high order. A publication may not be restrained if the defendant says that it intends to justify it or to make a fair comment on a matter of public interest,” Google’s application stated.

“This is in order to keep a fair balance between the constitutional right of free speech and individual rights. In the case such as the present one, where the plaintiff has failed to even implead the authors and publishers of the alleged defamatory articles, the court is deprived of a counter view or justification of the said articles, which goes directly contrary to due caution that must be exercised before grant of such injunction,” the application stated.