Karthikeyan R v Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :01-04-2010
CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO
                                 AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
WRIT PETITION NO.20344 OF 2009 and M.P.No.l of 2009

Karthikeyan. R.
Advocate    .. Petitioner
Vs.

1. Union of India,
   Rep. by its Secretary,
   Department of Telecommunications,
   Sanchar Bhavan,
   20, Ashoka Road,
   New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Secretary,
   Department of Information Technology,
   Electronics Niketan,No.6, CGO Complex,
   Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
3. The Secretary,
   Department of Legal Affairs,
   4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
   New Delhi 110 001.
4. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,
   Rep. by its Secretary,
   Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
   Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110 002.
5. The Secretary,
   Department of Women and Child Development,
   New Delhi.
6. State of Tamil Nadu,
   Rep. by its Secretary,
   Ministry of Information Technology,
   Secretariat, Chennai 9.
   
7. The Asst. Commissioner of Police,
   Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch,
   Egmore, Chennai 8.
8. The Central Bureau of Investigation,
   Rep. by its Director,
   Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
   New Delhi 110 003.
9. Internet Service Provider's Association of India,
   612-A, Chiranjiv Tower,
   43, Nehru Place,
   New Delhi 110 019.
10. Google India Private Limited,
    No.3, RM2 Infinity Tower-E,
    Old Madras Road,
    Bangalore 560 016.
11. Yahoo Web Services India Private Limited,
    801, Nicholas Piramal Towers,
    Peninsula Corporate Park,
    Lower Prel, Mumbai 400 013.
12. Microsoft Corporation India Private Ltd.,
    Tower-A, DLF Cyber Greens,
    DLF Cyber Citi, Sector 25A,
    Gurgaon 122 002.
13. Rediff.com India Limited,
    Mahalaxmi Engineering Estate,
    L.J. Road No.1, Mahim (West),
    Mumbai 400 016.    .. Respondents
    

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engine companies for offences and violations of licence conditions committed by them.

For Petitioner: Mr.P.T. Perumal

For Respondents 1 to 5: Mr.J. Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor General of India

For Respondents 6 & 7 : Mr. G. Desingu, Special Govt. Pleader

For Respondent 8: Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, Special Govt. Pleader

For Respondent 10: Mr. G. Balasubramanian for M/s. Poovayya & Co.

Respondents 9,11 to l3: No Appearance

ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
   
   
2. The present writ petition has been filed in public interest for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engine companies for offences and violations of licence conditions committed by them.
   
   
3. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5, the learned Assistant Solicitor General by placing reliance upon a recent unreported decision of the Mumbai High Court in Janhit Manch and Others v. Union of India IPI1 No. 155 of 2009), disposed of on 3.3.2010, submitted that the prayer in the writ petition before the Mumbai High Court is very much similar to the present writ petition and, as has been observed in the said decision, the present writ petition may also be disposed of.
   
   
4. We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision relied on by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In the said decision, the prayer made by the petitioners therein was to direct the respondents therein to make co-ordinated and sustained efforts, to have a blanket ban on websites which according to them are displaying material pertaining to sex and harmful to the youth of the country. The Division Bench, after hearing the contentions made on either side, observed as follows :
   
   "By the present petition what the petitioner seeks is that this court which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country, should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and sustained efforts to close down the websites as aforestated. Once Parliament, in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be taken if an offence is disclosed. Courts in such matters, the guardian of the freedom of free speech, and more so a constitutional court should not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved depending on the sensibilities of persons whose views may differ on what is morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved may file a complaint.
   
   In the light of that we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction. If the petitioner comes across any website/s which according to him publishes or transmits any act which amounts to offence under section 67 or 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, it is upto him to file a complaint.
   
   With the above observations, Petition disposed of."
   
   
5. From the facts of the Janhit Manch case and the observations made therein, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio of the said decision squarely applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present writ petition the relief sought for by the petitioner is to strictly enforce the rules monitoring online publications in internet and punish the persons violating such rules, which is indirectly made in the Janhit Manch case. Therefore, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the present writ petition is disposed of. Moreover, we make it clear that if any complaint is made against the publishing or transmitting any obscene or pornographic publications, necessary steps should be taken by the respondents in accordance with law.
   
   
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
   
   With the above observations, Petition disposed of."
   Sd/
   Asst.Registrar
   /true copy/
   Sub Asst.Registrar

To

1. The Secretary,
   Union of India,
   Department of Telecommunications,
   Sanchar Bhavan, 20, Ashoka Road,
   New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Secretary,
   Department of Information Technology,
   Electronics Niketan,
   No.6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
   New Delhi 110 003
3. The Secretary,
   Department of Legal Affairs,
   4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
   New Delhi 110 001.
4. The Secretary,
   The Telecom Regulatory Authority of Indie,
   Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
   Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,New Delhi 110 002.
5. The Secretary,
   Department of Women and Child Development,
   New Delhi.
6. The Secretary,
   State of Tamil Nadu,
   Ministry of Information Technology,
   Secretariat, Chennai 9.
7. The Asst. Commissioner of Police,
   Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai 8.
8. The Director
   Central Bureau of Investigation,
   Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
   
   

1 cc To M/s.P.T.Perumal i E.Bdwing, Advocates, SR.22010

1 cc To Mr.J.Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor, SR.22034

1 cc To M/s.Poovayya & Co., Advocates, SR.22221

1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.21929

W.P.No.20344/2009
GR(CO)

srs 15/04/2010