The Delhi High Court has held that the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), a digital regulatory body established by the Central Government, cannot dispose of appeals filed by users merely because social media intermediaries fail to provide the requisite information.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the Committee has sufficient powers to direct social media intermediaries to provide information and justify why specific content or a user's account was removed or suspended, or why the user's complaint was rejected earlier.

“In the opinion of this Court, the Grievance Appellate Committee, which is a digital regulatory body established by the Central Government under the Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to hear appeals from users unsatisfied with the decisions of social media platform Grievance Officers, ought not to dispose of appeals solely because of lack of response/information from the intermediaries,” the Court said.

“The Committee has sufficient powers to direct the intermediaries to provide the requisite information and justify why specific content/account was removed/ suspended or why a user's complaint was previously rejected,” it added.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by a social media user Prakash Kumar Singh challenging the action of Meta Platforms and Instagram of suspending and disabling his Instagram account on June 02 and June 09, respectively, without subsequently restoring it.

Singh had approached the Grievance Appellate Committee against the action. However, the Committee disposed of his grievance by an order dated September 22, noting that the explanations provided by Meta for its action lacked clarity.

The Court observed that the Committee, which hears appeals from users dissatisfied with the decisions of social media platforms' Grievance Officers under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, has the authority to seek the requisite information from intermediaries.

During the hearing, Meta's counsel submitted that the relevant information would be provided to the Committee within two days.

In view of the submission, the Court restored Singh's appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee and directed it to pass an appropriate order expeditiously after receiving the requisite information from Meta.

The Court disposed of the plea, while granting Singh liberty to approach it again if any grievance remained.