Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Bombay HC View That Magistrate Can't Order Takedown Of Online Content Under S. 69 IT Act

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea against the Bombay High Court's prima facie observation that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct removal or blocking of online content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

The High Court had made this observation while refusing to set aside revision proceedings initiated by Google in sessions court against a magistrate order directing it to remove alleged defamatory content against the petitioner.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi upheld the High Court order but clarified that the said observation will not affect any civil remedies the petitioner may want to seek.

“We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court. However, this decision shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Civil Court in accordance with the law. It goes without saying that in the event the petitioner avails the prescribed remedy, the observations made by the High Court shall have no bearing in the adjudication of such dispute on merits and in accordance with law”, the Court observed.

Dhyan Foundation, a registered charitable non-profit organisation engaged in animal welfare activities, had approached the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier, Mumbai, alleging that five defamatory videos containing false imputations against it were being broadcast on YouTube, operated by Google LLC.

On March 31, 2023, the Magistrate directed Google LLC to stop and remove the circulation of the videos. The State Government was also directed to correspond with Google to ensure compliance with the rules framed under the Information Technology Act, 2000 .

When the videos were not removed, the Foundation filed another complaint seeking action for disobedience of the Magistrate's order. Google LLC then filed a revision before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court first condoned a delay of 116 days in filing the revision and then stayed further proceedings in the disobedience complaint

Aggrieved, the Foundation filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. In the first writ petition, it challenged the condonation of delay in filing the revision application. The High Court declined to interfere, finding that the cause shown by Google could not be termed wholly unsustainable and that there was no material to show negligence or lack of bona fides.

In the second writ petition, the Foundation challenged the interim stay granted by the Sessions Court on the disobedience proceedings.

Before the High Court, Google contended that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to direct blocking or removal of online content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. It relied on a decision of the Tripura High Court in State of Tripura v. Sri Soumen Sarkar, which held that Rule 10 of the 2009 Rules does not independently confer power on a Magistrate to order blocking of content.

The Bombay High Court noted that Section 69A empowers the Central Government or an authorised officer to direct blocking of information on specified grounds, subject to procedural safeguards under the 2009 Rules. It observed that the revision application challenging the Magistrate's jurisdiction was yet to be decided, and detailed findings at the writ stage could prejudice the Sessions Court.

The sessions court had found that an arguable case was made out by Google against the magistrate's jurisdiction. The High Court said that prima facie, it found that the view of the Additional Sessions Judge regarding jurisdictional competence could not be faulted with. Thus, it upheld the condonation of delay and declined to interfere with the interim stay on disobedience proceedings.

Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2497-2498/2026

Case Title – Dhyan Foundation v. Google LLC & Anr.