Bombay High Court Upholds Delay Condonation in Defamation Case against Google

Court dismisses petitions challenging delay condonation and stays proceedings over jurisdictional concerns

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by Dhyan Foundation against Google LLC. The petitions sought to challenge the condonation of a 116-day delay in a criminal revision application filed by Google and questioned the jurisdiction of a magistrate's order directing Google to remove alleged defamatory content from its platform, YouTube.

The dispute arose when Dhyan Foundation, a charitable organization focused on animal welfare, accused Google of allowing defamatory videos against it to be circulated on YouTube. Initially, the Metropolitan Magistrate ordered Google to cease the circulation of these videos. However, Google failed to comply, prompting the Foundation to seek enforcement action.

Google subsequently filed a revision application with a delay of 116 days, which was condoned by the Additional Sessions Judge. Dhyan Foundation contested this delay condonation, arguing that the reasons cited by Google, mainly internal procedural approvals due to its large organizational structure, did not constitute a sufficient cause.

Justice N.J. Jamadar of the Bombay High Court emphasized the principles governing the condonation of delay, noting that courts should focus on the sufficiency of the cause rather than the length of the delay. The judgment highlighted that a liberal approach is generally adopted to advance substantive justice unless there is willful negligence or lack of bona fide.

The court also addressed the question of jurisdiction concerning the Magistrate's order under Section 69-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The provision empowers the Central Government or its authorized officers, not the Magistrate, to block access to information. The court refrained from delving into jurisdictional competence, citing the ongoing revision application, but upheld the interim stay on proceedings as justified.

The court concluded that it found no merit in interfering with the Additional Sessions Judge's discretion in condoning the delay or in the stay order, thereby dismissing both writ petitions filed by Dhyan Foundation.

Bottom Line:

Principles governing the condonation of delay - Exercise of discretion by courts in condoning delay should aim to advance substantive justice rather than be swayed by technicalities, provided there is no willful negligence or lack of bona fide.

Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5, Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 69A

Dhyan Foundation v. Google LLC, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2819805