In response, Google and Meta have opposed a move by Delhi High Court seeking to make social media platforms proactively monitor and remove illegal content uploaded by users. The companies said such a requirement is both legally unsustainable and practically impossible, saying intermediaries cannot be converted into “super censors” who should be in charge of deciding if the content is law-abiding before it is published.
The submissions followed a motion filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh, who wanted to request to allow intermediaries to automatically detect and remove content that is not within the law. The plea was after audio and video recordings of court proceedings of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal were circulated online, allegedly in violation of Delhi High Court’s video conferencing rules.
How and why did the Court hear the case?
The controversy started when clips of court hearings related to the purported Delhi excise policy case involving Kejriwal appeared on social media. Singh filed a petition seeking contempt proceedings against Kejriwal and others over the alleged publication of the recordings.
In April, a division bench of Delhi High Court expanded the issue by calling into question a broader legal question: Can social media platforms be legally required to proactively identify and remove content that violates an existing law, including the court's prohibition on recording or publishing virtual court proceedings?
The matter has now become an all-round debate on what is the legal responsibility of internet intermediaries in India?
Google, Meta say platforms cannot judge every post
In separate submissions before the court, Google and Meta argued that Indian law does not require intermediaries to review every piece of user-generated content before it is published.
According to Meta, determining whether a post is unlawful cannot be done without considering the context, origin, applicable legal provisions and specific court directions. If platforms can make such legal judgments in isolation, then they would act as ‘super censors’ as the Supreme Court has warned previously.
Meta also argued that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 only require platforms to make "reasonable efforts" to discourage users from posting unlawful content. They do not require prior censorship or require companies to independently adjudicate the legality of every upload.
Google took a similar position—it is impossible to actively monitor the enormous volume of user-generated content uploaded every day. Rather, the company said effective action can only be taken when specific URLs or pieces of content are identified through valid legal processes.
Billions of Posts Make Blanket Monitoring Impossible
Meta put it in perspective, telling the court that Facebook has over 2.9 billion users worldwide and Instagram over 1 billion users.
The company claimed millions of posts, photographs, videos and comments are uploaded daily, making proactive scrutiny of every upload “impracticable, if not impossible.”
Meta maintained that any order requiring blanket monitoring of all content would be technologically unrealistic unless specific URLs or allegedly unlawful material were first identified.
What the Law Says
The dispute centres on the legal obligations of internet intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
And online platforms are provided with “safe harbour” protection from liability for user-generated content, as long as they are following due diligence procedures and removing unlawful content if they have received legal notice or lawful directions.
Both companies had to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) ruling, that intermediaries cannot individually decide if online content is unlawful. Instead, platforms must be forced to remove content only after receiving a court order or a lawful direction from the government.
Ravish Kumar's Stand
Ravish Kumar, who has also been named in the case over the circulation of court recordings, said he voluntarily removed the content from his platform out of “institutional deference” in Delhi High Court.
But he argued that he could not be accused of wilfully violating court rules because India's legal framework governing the recording and reporting of court proceedings remains fragmented and continues to evolve across different courts.
The outcome of the case will have a significant impact on social media platforms in India and on whether intermediaries should be required to proactively monitor user-generated content or should still enjoy safe harbour protection under existing law.
