SC concerned over misuse of web
21/08/2019
He said the government found it a challenge to trace the ‘originator’ of such online content. The services of social media platforms, which were used to circulate such content, was the need of the hour. “We do not have the mechanism to find out the originator... We cannot have people commit crimes.”
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Kapil Sibal, representing social media platforms, said they had moved the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of transferring the proceedings pending in High Courts to the apex court for adjudication.
Facebook contended that there were four petitions — two in the Madras High Court and one each in the Bombay and the Madhya Pradesh High Courts — on the issue. Mr. Rohatgi said Mr. Venugopal was unnecessarily delving into the merits of the case and he should only argue on the question of transfer. The court, as the highest court in the country, and not the High Courts, should decide the issue that affected the privacy of an online user. A decision of the top court would cover the entire span of the country and would uniformly apply to all the States, he said.
There was a risk that the High Courts might arrive at conflicting decisions on the issue. It would be better to have the Supreme Court take the final call. The Tamil Nadu police were saying that Aadhaar should be used for linking user profiles, he said.
“They cannot tell us how to run our platforms. We have end-to-end encryption on WhatsApp and even we do not have access to the content. How can we tell them what is the Aadhaar number? We also have to take care of the privacy of the users,” he stated.
Mr. Sibal said a decision of the Indian courts would have global ramifications.
Both lawyers pointed out that a nine-judge Constitution Bench had declared privacy as a fundamental right associated with life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Mr. Venugopal asked why social media platforms have decided to approach the Supreme Court at this point of time.
“Why are they coming now? Eighteen hearings have already taken place [in the Madras High Court]. The proceedings are at an advanced stage. They [social media platforms] had accepted the jurisdiction of the High Courts,” he said, opposing the move to transfer the cases from the Madras High Court.
The court finally issued notice to the Centre and the States on the plea made by social media platforms for transferring the proceedings in High Courts to the apex court. It further scheduled the next hearing to September 13.
The Bench said the “hearing before the Madras High Court may go on but no effective order be passed till further orders.”
21/08/2019
He said the government found it a challenge to trace the ‘originator’ of such online content. The services of social media platforms, which were used to circulate such content, was the need of the hour. “We do not have the mechanism to find out the originator... We cannot have people commit crimes.”
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Kapil Sibal, representing social media platforms, said they had moved the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of transferring the proceedings pending in High Courts to the apex court for adjudication.
Facebook contended that there were four petitions — two in the Madras High Court and one each in the Bombay and the Madhya Pradesh High Courts — on the issue. Mr. Rohatgi said Mr. Venugopal was unnecessarily delving into the merits of the case and he should only argue on the question of transfer. The court, as the highest court in the country, and not the High Courts, should decide the issue that affected the privacy of an online user. A decision of the top court would cover the entire span of the country and would uniformly apply to all the States, he said.
There was a risk that the High Courts might arrive at conflicting decisions on the issue. It would be better to have the Supreme Court take the final call. The Tamil Nadu police were saying that Aadhaar should be used for linking user profiles, he said.
“They cannot tell us how to run our platforms. We have end-to-end encryption on WhatsApp and even we do not have access to the content. How can we tell them what is the Aadhaar number? We also have to take care of the privacy of the users,” he stated.
Mr. Sibal said a decision of the Indian courts would have global ramifications.
Both lawyers pointed out that a nine-judge Constitution Bench had declared privacy as a fundamental right associated with life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Mr. Venugopal asked why social media platforms have decided to approach the Supreme Court at this point of time.
“Why are they coming now? Eighteen hearings have already taken place [in the Madras High Court]. The proceedings are at an advanced stage. They [social media platforms] had accepted the jurisdiction of the High Courts,” he said, opposing the move to transfer the cases from the Madras High Court.
The court finally issued notice to the Centre and the States on the plea made by social media platforms for transferring the proceedings in High Courts to the apex court. It further scheduled the next hearing to September 13.
The Bench said the “hearing before the Madras High Court may go on but no effective order be passed till further orders.”
No comments:
Post a Comment