Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment In PIL Against Facebook To Stop Hateful Content Against Rohingya Community

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved judgment in a public interest litigation (PIL) against Facebook India (now Meta) to immediately take measures to stop use of its algorithmic features that allegedly promote “hateful and harmful content” against the Rohingya community.The plea has been moved by two Rohingya refugees, Mohammad Hamim and Kawsar Mohammed, who fled Myanmar due to ethnic violence and have been residing in the national capital for the last 2 to 5 years.A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora reserved the order and indicated that it will either direct the plea to be treated as a representation to the Central Government or will give liberty to the petitioners to approach Facebook with their grievances.“What we can do is, we can say that this writ petition be treated as a representation to the Union of India…or you approach Facebook and tell them [your grievances]. If you are not satisfied, you will have appellate mechanism [under the IT Rules 2021]. If you are not satisfied by appellate mechanism, you'll have your remedies. Then we will see what can be done,” the court remarked.The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves and Advocate Kawalpreet Kaur. Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar appeared for Facebook along with Advocate Tejas Karia.While reserving the order, the court orally remarked that the plea has been filed by someone without reading the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and that it does not refer either to the said Rules or guidelines on the subject. The court added that the petitioners did not give a prior notice to the Union Government, thereby highlighting that proper procedure must have been followed before filing the PIL. “Today it is one community. Tomorrow there maybe some other community. Someone else might feel that way…. The fact that there is a lot of abuse on social media today cannot be denied,” the bench remarked. “He [petitioner's counsel] is looking at it from a different perspective. He wants a perfect system. Perfect system is an illusion,” the court added. During the hearing, the bench said that the petitioners should have filed a civil suit for better adjudication of the matter and that filing a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy.Appearing for Facebook, Datar submitted that the Central Government has enacted the IT Rules of 2021 which has put in place a three tier system to tackle offending posts, including hate speeches, on social media platforms. Gonsalves contended that Facebook, as a social media platform, abets and abets as well as magnify and spread the hateful content against Rohingya community. Facebook is the propagator of hate speech, he alleged. To this, the bench responded: “Today free speech is also at a higher pedestal. The abuse [on social media] is paramount today. But how will you… You cannot be selective in this. If you are saying that State can do censorship then you'll have to give them full power.”It further said that today injunction orders are passed in favour of private individuals and against social media platforms, including dynamic and dynamic plus injunctions in civil suits. “We are dealing with all this on the original side. There is a whole lot of jurisdiction with this. We have taken action against cyber lockers. Injunctions have been passed against cyber lockers,” it said. The bench further said that while there is no doubt that there is a lot of abuse today on social media and decent conversations cannot happen there, but writ petition is not the appropriate remedy in such cases. Datar sought dismissal of the plea by submitting that no reference has been made in it as to how the guidelines put in by the social media platform are ineffective. He further submitted that the plea does not mention any averment to prove how Facebook magnifies or abets the hateful content and how the State is a silent spectator. “It is a dangerous precedent. Today, with utmost respect, can you lordships say to YouTube that there are too many things that get viral on your platform, you change the ranking system and don't show the obscene videos,” he said. After hearing both the sides in detail, the bench said that it will pass orders in the matter.The PIL flags hate campaigns on Facebook in which members from the Rohingya community are being referred as “terrorists” and “infiltrators”.It seeks a direction on Facebook to suspend various accounts who have been indulging in circulating the hateful content and to appoint “trained human moderators” to analyse the political, social and cultural context of hate narratives at the local and regional level. A direction is also sought on Facebook to actively train the algorithms to ensure polarising and extreme content in Indian languages is not suggested to viewers in India and to replace the current ranking system which gives...

Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment In PIL Against Facebook To Stop Hateful Content Against Rohingya Community

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags