Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Social Media Platforms, Emphasizes Need for Judicial Determination in Defamation Cases
The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling on May 22, 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by Mr. Anto Augustine and others against the Union of India, challenging the inaction of social media platforms in removing allegedly defamatory content. The petitioners, managerial employees of a broadcasting company, sought the removal of content published by social media channels, alleging defamation and infringement of their constitutional rights.
The court, presided over by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., underscored the importance of judicial determination in defamation cases, stating that intermediaries are not obligated to remove content unless directed by a competent court or notified by a government agency. The judgment reiterated that adjudication of defamation involves factual determinations, which fall beyond the purview of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Rahman highlighted that the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, do not impose an obligation on intermediaries to adjudicate defamation claims. The court noted that the legislative intent was clarified through amendments that removed "defamatory" content from the due diligence obligations of intermediaries.
The judgment emphasized that any state interference with freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, must be predicated on a judicial determination of the defamatory nature of the content. The court further noted that private law disputes, such as defamation claims, should not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction, and alternative remedies are available in civil and criminal jurisdictions.
The court's decision aligns with the Supreme Court's observations in the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which clarified the conditions under which intermediaries must act on content removal. The Kerala High Court's ruling reinforces the protections afforded to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, emphasizing that intermediaries cannot be held liable for third-party content without a court order or government notification.
In dismissing the writ petition, the court clarified that the petitioners are not precluded from pursuing civil or criminal remedies against the parties responsible for the alleged defamatory content. The ruling serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between protecting individual rights and safeguarding freedom of speech in the digital age.
Bottom line:-
The intermediary's obligation to remove defamatory content arises only upon receiving a court order or notification from the government or its agency. The question of defamation cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s):
- Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 79
- Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
- Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2), and 226
Mr. Anto Augustine v. Union of India, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2905676
