In a series of events that started from the petitioner, a young lady’s private photos being misused by her then partner (the accused) were uploaded on social media. She was a minor at the time when her partner compelled her to send him intimate pictures of herself. Later, when the petitioner moved to the UK, he also physically assaulted her which resulted in a restraining order being passed against him by the Court of the Province of Bath.
The petitioner had moved to Australia when she realised her pictures were leaked on social media sites such as Twitter, Instagram, Youtube.
An FIR was lodged by the Pet. Before the special cell, Cyber Crime Dept, Delhi Police under Section 67 and 67 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. There exists a loophole in the law here as intermediaries (social media sites, in this case) claim immunity under section 79(1) of the Act.
Thus, the court in its order pronounced by a single judge bench consisting of Justice Vibhu Bhakru firstly demanded all social media intermediaries to take all steps within their capacity to ensure child pornography is not hosted or presented on their respective sites. Secondly, in light of immunity taken under Section 79(1), the court was of the opinion that social media platforms were undisputedly under an obligation of removal of unlawful content on receiving information regarding the same.
Lastly, in view of the increasing content of child pornography, sites like Instagram and Facebook adopted policies like zero tolerance to child pornography, updating their community standards, joined hands with organizations such as NCMEC( National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children).
