Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) MLA Kiran Samant, which raised concerns over the alleged misuse of social media by influencers, content creators, and comedians.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik said the reliefs sought by Samant were general in nature, and noted that he had an “efficacious remedy” available under the Information Technology Rules to lodge a complaint with the designated nodal officer for blocking such content.
Samant, the Rajapur MLA, had named the Union Ministry of Information and Technology, Google, and comedian Kunal Kamra as respondents. His plea said he was “disturbed by alarming trends where influential people, under the garb of free speech, are spreading misinformation and launching unwarranted attacks on the judiciary and shaking the very foundation of Indian democratic system”.
As an example, he cited Kamra, against whom an FIR was registered last month for allegedly objectionable remarks about Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde during a stand-up comedy performance.
However, Chief Justice Aradhe observed orally: “What may be considered misuse by the petitioner may be seen by others as freedom of speech. The petitioner cannot determine that.”
Appearing for Kamra, senior advocate Darius Khambata said the law already provides remedies for grievances against online content, including seeking blocking of such content through appropriate channels.
The court referred to provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the 2009 Blocking Rules, which allow individuals to approach authorities for content removal, even in emergencies.
The bench also noted that Samant had not availed of these remedies and instead sought broadly worded directions from the court, which could not be granted.
It further pointed out that Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the 2021 IT Rules — which allowed the government to establish a fact-check unit — was struck down by the high court last year. An appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.
Regarding Samant’s plea for forming a censorship and vigilance committee to monitor social media, the court said this falls within the domain of policy and cannot be ordered by the judiciary. “The petitioner himself is a lawmaker. It is open for him to take appropriate action if so advised,” the bench noted.
While disposing of the plea, the court granted Samant liberty to approach the appropriate authority to seek information about action taken on complaints concerning social media misuse.
