Microsoft moves HC against order to remove intimate, non-consensual images

Section 79 of the Act pertains to instances where intermediaries — including internet service providers and search engines, among others — are exempted from being liable for any third-party information, data or communication link made available or hosted by them.

Mehta argued that the April 26, 2023 order passed by a single-judge bench of the high court refers to technology used by Meta to remove offending content, adding that Microsoft’s Bing search engine, unlike Meta, does not host content.

The single-judge bench had observed that search engines cannot be allowed to avoid their statutory obligations on the ground that they don’t have the “necessary technology”.

On Wednesday, the Division Bench was informed by the counsel appearing for Google LLC that his client has also filed an appeal against the single judge’s order which is likely to be listed on Thursday. The bench said that it shall hear both matters on Thursday.

In an 88-page judgement, the single-judge bench had passed a slew of directions to social media intermediaries, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), and Delhi Police to expeditiously handle cases of dissemination of NCII on the internet.

With respect to search engines, the single-judge bench had directed: “Search engines must employ the already existing mechanism with the relevant hash-matching technology on the lines of the one developed by Meta as has been discussed above. They cannot be allowed to avoid their statutory obligations by stating that they do not have the necessary technology, which is patently false as has been exhibited during the course of hearing.”

The April 2023 order was passed in a plea of a woman seeking blocking of certain sites carrying her intimate images and registration of an FIR against a man who she alleged had acquainted himself with her through social media.