The Delhi High Court declined to issue any directives compelling Facebook (Meta), a social media company, to alter its algorithm in order to curb the spread of hate speech targeting the Rohingya community.

On January 30, a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that issuing an order for preemptive censorship of any content targeting the Rohingyas would be akin to implementing a remedy that is more detrimental than the underlying issue.

The Court deemed the pleas against Facebook, which sought remedies such as altering their algorithm, preventing the dissemination of hate speech, and removing offensive content targeting the Rohingya community, as not maintainable.

The Court observed that it seemed the petitioners might not be well-versed in the legal obligations binding social media platforms, specifically the prohibition of promoting hate speech and the requirement to exercise due diligence outlined in Rule 3 of the Information Technology Rules. The Court also pointed out the existence of a grievance redressal mechanism within those rules.

Indeed, as argued by the Standing Counsel for the Union of India, the Information Technology Rules appropriately include provisions for emergency blocking orders under Rule 16, initiated by the Authorized Officer. The court observed that the petitioners did not dispute the efficacy of this redressal mechanism.

The Court concluded by disposing of the petition, emphasizing the presence of a robust grievance redressal mechanism within the Information Technology Rules. The petitioners were reminded of the alternative efficacious remedy available to address any objectionable posts. 

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the High Court by Mohammad Hamim and Kawsar Mohammed, represented by advocate Kawalpreet Kaur.

Both individuals had sought refuge in India in July 2018 and March 2022, respectively, citing persecution in Myanmar. They alleged that Facebook intentionally neglected to take action against misinformation, harmful content, and posts targeting Rohingya refugees originating in India.

The plea underscored that the algorithms of Facebook actively promote content of such nature. During the hearing on Tuesday, the Court raised concerns, expressing apprehension that granting the reliefs sought in the PIL might confer pre-publication censorship power to the government, posing potential risks to freedom of speech.

Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar along with advocates Varun Pathak, Shashank Mishra, Shyamlal Anand, Vishesh Sharma, Ramayni Sood and Rahul Unnikrishnan appeared for Meta Platforms Inc.

The Union of India was represented through Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Apoorv Kurup as well as advocates Nidhi Mittal and Gauri Goburdhun.

Case Title : Mohammad Hamim and Anr v Facebook India Online Services Pvt Ltd and Ors