Google LLC and Meta Platforms have informed the Delhi High Court that social media intermediaries cannot be legally required to proactively monitor, identify and remove every instance of allegedly unlawful user-generated content. The companies argued that such a direction would effectively convert online platforms into "super censors," a role that is neither contemplated under Indian law nor practically possible.
Background of the Case
The public interest litigation was filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh following the circulation of video clips from court proceedings held on April 13 during the hearing of a recusal plea. The petitioner alleged that the recordings were uploaded on social media in violation of the Delhi High Court's Video Conferencing Rules and sought directions requiring platforms to prevent similar uploads in the future.
Earlier, the High Court had ordered the removal of identified links containing the recordings and expanded the scope of the proceedings to examine whether intermediaries could be compelled to automatically detect and remove future uploads of such content.
Court Proceedings
During the hearing, the Division Bench noted that notices had not yet been served on several respondents. In view of the incomplete service, the Court deferred further consideration of the matter to a later date.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Google and Meta's Stand
In separate affidavits, Google and Meta submitted that intermediaries do not create, own or control third-party content and therefore cannot determine the legality of every post before it is published.
Google stated that YouTube receives millions of uploads, making proactive monitoring impossible. It argued that its legal obligation arises only after specific content or URLs are identified through a valid court order or lawful government direction.
Meta similarly contended that identifying whether content violates the law requires examining its source, context and applicable legal directions on a case-by-case basis.
“The broader relief sought by the petitioner would require intermediaries to independently decide the legality of user-generated content, effectively making them ‘super censors’,” the companies submitted.
Both companies relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to argue that intermediaries are protected from liability for third-party content unless they receive lawful notice requiring its removal.
Court's Decision
As several respondents had not yet been served, the Delhi High Court adjourned the matter for further hearing.
The Court will consider the issues raised after completion of service on all parties.
