Violation Of Undertaking To Filter Obscene /Inappropriate Materials Can Amount To Contempt Of Court, Madras HC Cautions TikTok [Read Order]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

5 May 2019 11:49 AM GMT

  • Violation Of Undertaking To Filter Obscene /Inappropriate Materials Can Amount To Contempt Of Court, Madras HC Cautions TikTok [Read Order]

    "Any technological innovation should be utilised for constructive activities and not be used for commission of offences violating rights of the people."

    The Madras High Court has warned the TikTok management that if it violates its undertakings to filter negative and inappropriate or obscene materials, it can amount to contempt of court. The division bench comprising of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice SS Sundar vacated the order after considering the affidavit filed by TikTok highlighting the safety features deployed by them. ...

    The Madras High Court has warned the TikTok management that if it violates its undertakings to filter negative and inappropriate or obscene materials, it can amount to contempt of court.

    The division bench comprising of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice SS Sundar vacated the order after considering the affidavit filed by TikTok highlighting the safety features deployed by them. The measures adopted by them have been reproduced in the order. It was submitted that there are automated tools that are industry standard that can detect pornography content that might be posted and immediately remove the same.

    It has proactive take-down mechanisms including as artificial intelligence powered algorithms that detect illegal content, including such content that is violative of any law, such as Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000, and remove/disable them instantly, the company had said in its affidavit.

    Referring to these statements, the bench said that after the order passed by it on 3rd April, the Company is said to have erased six million videos, the contents of which are doubtful. The bench observed:

    "Though it is admitted that this possible mischief and irreparable damage that may be caused to innocent children and women cannot be ruled out, taking note of the safety features projected by the 9th respondent and the statutory protection and remedies available under the Statute, the interim order granted by this Court on 03.04.2019 is vacated"

    Though the Bytedance raised the issue of fundamental right of speech and expression, the court opined that the rights of intermediary, the creator of a platform for users for commercial purpose may not take shelter under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India.

    While vacating the order, the court said that its endeavour is to safeguard the people using cyber space becoming victims, especially woman and children. Any technological innovation should be utilised for constructive activities and not be used for commission of offences violating rights of the people, the court added. The bench further said:

    "This Court is concerned about several incidents of women and children using cyber space becoming victims reported in newspapers and social media. This Court is also aware of the fact that the millions of users are denied their right to have access to the said platform which also promises several good things."

    The bench has posted the matter to second week of June.

    TikTok Ban Saga

    It was on 3rd April, the Madurai bench passed an ex-parte order directing the Government to ban the popular application. It observed that the application is dangerous for children in view of inappropriate contents including language and pornography being posted in the application.

    Later, Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd., which owns the mobile application, filed a special leave petition against the Madurai bench order directing the Government to ban the application.

    Refusing to stay the order, the Apex Court bench had directed the Madras High Court to consider the objections against the ex-parte order. In the hearing conducted pursuant to Apex Court order, the High Court refused to lift the ban.

    Read Order


    Next Story