The Supreme Court, today, has examined the scope of judicial authority to direct blocking or takedown of online content, focusing on the meaning of the term “competent court” under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules.

The case arose after a Magistrate directed the takedown of allegedly defamatory content hosted online. It was argued that “the term used is ‘competent court’. The competent court must otherwise inherit the power,” and a Magistrate does not possess inherent jurisdiction to pass such blocking orders. Thus, the following points were raised before the court:

• Section 69A of the Information Technology Act allows blocking of online content, but only on specific grounds such as national security, not defamation.

• The IT Blocking Rules refer to orders passed by a “competent court,” but the term “competent court” is not defined.

• A Magistrate hearing a criminal defamation complaint does not automatically have civil injunctive powers to order content removal.

The Court suggested that the issue should not be viewed with respect to online content, remarking:

“Examine it independent of electronic record. If a defamatory article was published in a newspaper, you could file a complaint. Would you get an injunction against further circulation? That’s the point.”

Counsel for Google submitted that, despite contesting jurisdiction, it had complied with the Magistrate’s order within 36 hours, disabling four out of five links within India. It was further pointed out that the remaining link was hosted overseas, in the UK. To this, the court has directed to avail remedies in accordance with the law. “You have a remedy in law, you avail that remedy.”