- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court grants time to the Centre for revealing plans for regularising de-platforming of users from social media
Delhi High Court grants time to the Centre for revealing plans for regularising de-platforming of users from social media.
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Yashwanth Varma while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the suspension and deletion of accounts of several social media users, has granted time to the Centre to inform if it were drafting any regulations to govern the issue of de-platforming of users from social media.
In an affidavit filed in one of the cases for the suspension of the petitioner's Twitter account, the Centre has stated that an individual's liberty and freedom cannot be "waylaid or jettisoned in the slipstream of social and technological advancement" and it is the duty of social media platforms to respect the fundamental rights of the citizens and conform to the Constitution of India.
Stating that it is the custodian of the users' fundamental rights in cyberspace, the Centre has said that a social media account can be suspended or de-platformed only in cases such as in the interest of the sovereignty, security, and integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or pursuant to a court order or the content is grossly unlawful such as sexual abuse material. Thus, social media platforms are not at liberty to take down the account itself or completely suspend it in all cases. Complete de-platforming is against the spirit of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Central government counsel Kirtiman Singh urged the court to list the cases after two weeks to enable him to come back with further instructions concerning any draft policy on the de-platforming of social media users.
Senior counsel for one of the social media platforms said that in case such guidelines are formulated, the scope of proceedings before the court can be navigated accordingly.
The court listed the case for further hearing in September while asking the Centre to state its stand.