The bench of Justice Br Gavai and Augustine George has sought answers from the government on a petition seeking to reject Rule 16 of the Rules 16 of the Rules of Rules. Notice has been issued by the bench on this petition. Senior Advocate Indirajyasing, appearing by the petitioner software Freedom Law Center, said that no notice was given to the person posing the information and only a notice was sent to social media platforms like X. He said, “The government’s power to remove information has not been challenged. On removing the information, notice should also be given to the person from which the information has been presented on the public platform.”
The petition filed by Advocate Paras Nath Singh challenged the validity of some provisions of these rules. This petition said that by making alternative to issuing a notice of blocking request to the person posing the content, Rule 8 has given the ‘monopoly’ to the authorities to see whether to give notice to the person posing the information. The bench initially said that the person who has a complaint can plead with the court. Along with this, the bench said that if the person can be identified, a notice will be given and if the person who has hosted the information cannot be identified, a notice will be sent to the intermediate.
Regarding this, Justice Gawai said, “Initially we believe that the rule should read in such a way that if a person can be identified, he should be given notice.” When Jaising said that the court would know about social media, Justice Gawai said that he is not on any social media platform.
(This news has not been edited by the NDTV team. It has been published directly from the syndicate feed.)
Download the Gadgets 360 Android app for the latest tech news, smartphone review and exclusive offer on popular mobiles and follow us on Google News.
Social Media, FB, Mobiles, Call For, Marketplace, Data, Govt, Best Courtroom, Understand, Blocking Off, Publish, Content Material, Legislation, Safety