In this controversial judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld the personal liability of the CEO of the intermediary under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for the circulation of obscene material on the website Bazee.com. The Court invoked the doctrine of deemed criminal liability of directors to justify its decision. 

The Supreme Court ordered the Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee and Internet and Mobile Association of India to file a report for regulating websites having restricted child pornography content. 

In this judgment dated 23.12.2016, the Delhi High Court refused to apply the speech protective standard laid down in Shreya Singhal to intermediaries in the context of the Copyright Act. The Court reasoned that the constitutional protection of Article 19(2) is not available to content that amounts to copyright infringement, and hence concerns pertaining to a chilling effect on speech would not apply in the copyright context. Nonetheless, the Court held that intermediaries can be held liable under the Copyright Act only if it is shown that they had actual knowledge of the infringing content.

In this controversial judgment, the Supreme Court passed a blanket order directing search engines to adopt such techniques that will auto-block content pertaining to pre-natal sex determination if searched for (40 search items were mentioned by the Court).

The Delhi High Court held that an Indian court may direct an intermediary to disable and block content for access under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 even when the information is being transmitted outside India, as long as the same is being uploaded from India.

The Delhi High Court passed an order of dynamic injunction geared towards controlling infringement as and when it is brought to light.

The Delhi High Court ordered Telegram to disclose basic subscriber information pertaining to the users who were running the channels charged with illegally circulating e-versions of the plaintiff’s newspaper. The Court also directed Telegram to take down or block the said channels. 

Holding that Quikr was not running a charity portal but was generating income, the Delhi High Court held it liable for fraudulent Reliance job advertisements posted on its website without due diligence on its part. 

In order to come within the fold of “public order”, the Court famously held, “the expression should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a ‘spark in a powder keg’”.

The Court held that any restriction on speech should be founded on the principle of least invasiveness i.e. the restriction should be imposed in a manner and to the extent which is unavoidable in a given situation and it should also consider whether the anticipated event would or would not be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest.