'Profound Invasion Of Privacy': Rajasthan High Court Directs Centre, Meta To Remove 'Obscene Images' Of Minor From Instagram

While directing Centre to coordinate with Meta Platforms to remove "obscene and private images" of a minor boy from social media, the Rajasthan High Court observed that dissemination of private and intimate content without consent was not only a legal wrong, but a "profound invasion of dignity and irreversible consequences".Underscoring the far-reaching, compounding and deeply invasive consequences of such unauthorized circulation, Justice Farjand Ali in his order observed that while intermediaries are afforded conditional immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, a principle commonly understood as the doctrine of “safe harbour” however such immunity is neither absolute nor unqualified. The court said:"The legislative scheme makes it abundantly clear that an intermediary cannot remain a mute spectator once illegality is brought to its notice. Any failure, delay, or lack of diligence in removing or disabling access to such content would result in the forfeiture of the statutory protection, thereby exposing the intermediary to legal consequences. In the present digital age, where social media platforms act as powerful tools for instantaneous dissemination, the unauthorized circulation of private, intimate, or obscene content assumes grave proportions. Such acts not only cause irreparable harm to the reputation and dignity of an individual but also constitute a serious invasion of privacy. The moment such unlawful content is brought to the notice of the intermediary, whether through a complaint, representation, or otherwise, it is incumbent upon the platform to act expeditiously and take all necessary measures to remove, block, or disable access to the offending material.Any inaction or delayed response on the part of the intermediary, in such sensitive matters, would amount to a failure in discharging the due diligence obligations cast upon it under the IT Act. This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that continued availability of such private content on digital platforms perpetuates harm with every passing moment, magnifying the injury to the victim. Therefore, an intermediary, upon gaining knowledge, is duty-bound to act swiftly and responsibly, failing which it cannot be permitted to seek refuge under the doctrine of safe harbour and must bear the legal consequences of such omission". The Court held that the law needed to respond to such scenarios with sensitivity, urgency and firmness, to adequately protect the individual from enduring harm.It said that such instances struck at the core of right to privacy that included right to be let alone as well as right to be forgotten, owing to the content's continued availability on social media."Closely intertwined with the right to privacy is the doctrine of the right to be forgotten, which has been recognized as an emerging facet of informational privacy. The said doctrine enables an individual to seek erasure, removal, or delinking of personal data which is no longer necessary or which unjustifiably infringes upon one's privacy and dignity. In cases of the present nature, where intimate content is disseminated without consent, the continued availability of such material serves no legitimate public interest and, on the contrary, perpetuates harm...this Court is of the considered opinion that the dissemination of private and intimate content without consent is not merely a legal wrong but a profound invasion of dignity with cascading and irreversible consequences," it added. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the far-reaching consequences of such instances, calling it a “digital scar” which was not confined to the moment of initial publication but was like a permanent imprint on life, dignity and identity. The Court held that the injury caused due to such instances not only took a psychological and emotional toll on the victim, but also had many social ramifications like stigma, ostracization, and loss of social standing that extended to any individual irrespective of gender, affecting personal relationship, professional opportunities, and overall standing in society. In the present case the father of the minor boy, had argued that despite promptly lodging complaint before the jurisdictional police seeking registration of an FIR, no effective action has ensued and the objectionable content continues to remain in circulation. The Court further stated the professional and economic consequences faced by the victim who might suffer loss of employment opportunities, damage to career prospects and professional alienation. “…concept of a “digital scar” assumes even greater significance in the context of the right to be forgotten. The inability to fully erase such content results in a continuing violation, where the victim is repeatedly subjected to the same harm, thereby converting a singular act into a perpetual wrong.”In this light, the Court referred to the statutory obligations on the intermediaries as per Rule...

'Profound Invasion Of Privacy': Rajasthan High Court Directs Centre, Meta To Remove 'Obscene Images' Of Minor From Instagram

Nupur Agrawal

Tags