Google and Meta have told the Delhi High Court that requiring social media platforms to proactively monitor and remove allegedly unlawful content is both impractical and legally untenable. The tech giants argued that intermediaries cannot be turned into "super censors" responsible for deciding what is lawful and what is not.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy began after clips of court proceedings related to former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's alleged excise policy case were circulated online. Advocate Vaibhav Singh filed a petition seeking directions for intermediaries to proactively identify and remove content allegedly violating the law, specifically the Delhi High Court's video conferencing rules.

The Delhi High Court expanded the scope of the case by posing a broader legal question: can social media platforms be required to automatically detect and remove posts that violate an existing law? Google and Meta responded by arguing that India's legal framework does not require intermediaries to proactively screen every piece of user-generated content before it is published.

Arguments Against Proactive Monitoring

Meta highlighted the sheer scale of content moderation, stating that Facebook has over 2.9 billion users globally, while Instagram has more than one billion users. The company argued that proactive scrutiny of every piece of content is "impracticable, if not impossible" due to the millions of posts, comments, videos, and photographs uploaded every day.

  • Facebook has over 2.9 billion users globally
  • Instagram has more than one billion users
  • Millions of posts, comments, videos, and photographs are uploaded daily

The companies relied on the Supreme Court's landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India judgment, which held that intermediaries cannot be expected to independently determine whether online content is unlawful. Instead, takedown obligations generally arise after a court order or a lawful government direction.

Next Steps

The Delhi High Court will continue to hear the matter, with the next steps likely to determine the legal responsibilities of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The outcome may have significant implications for social media platforms and their content moderation policies in India.