On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court criticized Instagram, owned by Meta, for its insufficient grievance redressal system. The court warned the platform to quickly improve its operations to comply with the Information Technology Rules, or risk facing further judicial criticism.

The bench, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora scheduled the matter for May 7.

This rebuke arose during a case initiated by TV Today. TV Today had petitioned the High Court following the blocking of the Harper's Bazaar India Instagram page (@bazaarindia) due to a third-party complaint regarding copyright infringement. This action prompted TV Today to contest the constitutional validity of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2021.

TV Today, represented by Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, contended that Rule 3(1)(c) permitted intermediaries to block access to accounts without affording users a fair opportunity to challenge such actions. The court was apprised of instances where certain ambiguities in the IT Rules were exploited for this purpose.

Advocate Baruah emphasized that TV Today had raised its concerns with Meta on three occasions and had also approached the grievance redressal officer. However, the responses received indicated that it had not contacted the appropriate channel, as per Meta's communication.

Advocate Tejas Karia, representing Meta, informed the bench that the Harper's Bazaar Instagram page was blocked following three copyright infringement notices.

Advocate Karia further contended that the complainant had not adhered to the correct procedure. He pointed out that there are specific methods for submitting grievances, each with its designated procedures, including filling out a designated form via a specific hyperlink. He also emphasized that if someone violates content provisions, they must use the marked hyperlink and complete the form, after which Meta has 15 days to respond.

The court expressed dissatisfaction with Meta's complicated grievance procedure, emphasizing that it should be simple and straightforward, not convoluted. Accordingly, the court directed Meta to promptly fill out the required form.

Advocate Karia contended that TV Today's petition effectively challenged the Information Technology Rules (IT Rules). In response, the Bench warned Meta to address its operational shortcomings promptly or face potential judicial criticism.

Advocate Karia argued that the complainant had raised the issue via email instead of through the designated website channel, implying that they could have searched for the Grievance Officer on Google and submitted their complaint accordingly.

The court criticized Advocate Karia for what it perceived as intentionally misunderstanding their queries and urged Meta to ensure its officers fulfill their duties properly. Additionally, the court requested information on the number of complaints received by Meta and how they were handled in compliance with the IT Act.