HC: your suggestion is that notification under 79 (3) (b) should be in consonance with safegaurds in 69A?
Sr adv: yes. im saying that 79 (3) (b) cant be a standalone provision.
HC: what are rule 3(2)?
Sr adv: of 2011 rules
Sr adv: 79( 3) tells us when 79(1) will not apply. It has two components-one is court order. Im not a judge i cant sit down and see if each post is in accordance with law...so upon receiving knowledge is interpreted to mean a court order.
HC: intermediary governed only under 69A and 79 IT act?
Sr adv: yes
HC: how is intermediary regulating?
Sr adv: yes there are intermediary guideliness. I will show.
Raghavan now reads S 79: whole object is not to empower govt to do x or y but to deprive me (intermediary) of a protection that is given. It tells us when that protection will vanish. That is the only scope
Raghavan: the law is well settled. For govt to plead that law is per incuriam is unheard of. To say judgment of apex court (shreya singhal) is per incuriam must not be countenanced by the court.
Raghavan reads the judgment:
He states that SC said that u/69A blocking can take place by reasoned order. S 79(3)(b) has to be read down otherwise it will be difficult for intermediary to act when millions of request are made with respect of content.
Raghavan continues reading Shreya Singhal.
Read Summary of the Judgment in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India [Read the Judgment]
Raghavan: a blocking order is subject to scrutiny. That is reason why 69A is upheld. Now can protection under 69A be given go by? Because 79(3)(b) has no such inbuilt protections
Raghavan says that if intermediary is faced with court order which it has to follow.
HC: acd to you intermediary’s accontability springs only after blocking order?
Sr adv: i loose safe harbour provisison
I have no control over censorship over what is posted on platform. Principle is called net neutrality. Im just a platform. Therefore 79(1) says ‘beware if you violate IT safe harbour goes