Sanatan Sanstha v. Union of India and Others
In the High Court of Bombay
Stamp Number Main 1505/2020-Filing
Before Justice M S Sonak and Justice M S Jawalkar
Decided on July 12, 2021

Relevancy of the case: Constitutionality of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 79)
• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 12, 14, 19, 21)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner is a non-governmental organisation. Ten years ago, it created Facebook pages for propagating spirituality. Facebook blocked these pages for breaching the community standards.
• Subsequently, the public lost access to the content and posts on pages. Therefore, the petitioner claims that Facebook’s act violates fundamental rights.
• The petitioner alleges that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that Facebook is not entitled to protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Blocking has virtually modified the posted content on pages. Further, Facebook’s rights to edit and block is infringing the fundamental rights of equality and freedom of speech and expression.
• On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel submitted that Section 79 passed the test of constitutional validity in Shreya Singhal Union of India. However, the petitioner has not raised any new grounds for invalidating Section 79.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench denied taking the issue of the constitutionality of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Section 79 or any other provision of the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not provide the right to host or transmit the information through Facebook. Also, this matter is governed by the contract between the platform and its user. Therefore, this court is not the correct forum for the redressal of private contractual issues.
• The intermediary is required to take action on the complaints and requests of taking down the content. Moreover, identification of legitimate requests will lead to delay.

Final Decision

• As a result, the court dismissed the petition.