Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against LG Notification Granting Takedown Powers To Police For Removal Of Online Content

The Delhi High Court yesterday issued notice on a plea challenging a notification issued by Lieutenant governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena empowering the Delhi Police to issue takedown orders for removal of online content from social media.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued notice on the plea moved by Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in).

The Court has sought response of the LG Office and MeitY and has directed the responses be filed within six weeks.

The matter will now be heard on September 17.

The plea challenges the notification which designates the Delhi Police as the Nodal Agency under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, empowering it to issue takedown notices for online content.

The notification empowers the Delhi Police officers to issue takedown orders to social media companies and other intermediaries to remove illegal content under the Information Technology Act.

The petition submits that the designation of Delhi Police as the nodal agency has no basis in law and that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, nor the IT Rules confer any authority to appoint such a nodal agency.

As per the plea, the statutory power to block or remove online content is exclusively vested in the Central Government under Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

“The impugned notification, by granting these powers to the police, oversteps constitutional and statutory boundaries and is, therefore, ultra vires the parent legislation,” the plea states.

It adds that allowing police officers to unilaterally issue takedown notices, without judicial or independent oversight, opens the door to unchecked censorship and arbitrary restriction of constitutionally protected speech.

“Such a move violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution and contradicts landmark judgments like Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasize the need for legal safeguards and proportionality in actions impacting fundamental rights,” it submits further.

Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman represented the petitioner organization. The legal team also comprised of Advocates Faizan Ahmed, Musheer Zaidi, Mishi Choudhary, Prasanth Sugathan, Arjun Adrian D'souza and Syed Mohammad Haroon.