Delhi HC Restrains Baba Ramdev From Contempt Action As It Admits Facebook’s Appeal Against Global Blocking Order

The Delhi High Court has admitted Facebook's appeal against an earlier interim order which had imposed a global injunction on the social media platform under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, to block allegedly defamatory content uploaded against Baba Ramdev.

The court has clarified that while no interim stay would be granted, Baba Ramdev would not be allowed to move any contempt application before the disposal of Facebook’s appeal.

Effectively, this would mean that Facebook will not face any contempt action for the time being even if it does not implement the direction for global blocking of allegedly defamatory content against Baba Ramdev.

It may be recalled that an interim order passed recently had held that as long as either the uploading takes place from India or the information is located in India on a computer resource here, Indian courts would have jurisdiction to pass global injunctions.

Accordingly, the interim order had directed Facebook, Youtube, Google and Twitter to take down, remove, block, restrict or disable access, on a global basis, all such videos or weblinks or URLs in the list annexed to Baba Ramdev’s complaint, which were uploaded from internet protocol (IP) addresses within India.

As per the interim order, the defendents (Facebook) were directed to block access and disable URLs or hyperlinks which were uploaded from outside India, in a list annexed to Baba Ramdev’s complaint, in order to ensure that users in India are unable to access the same.

The interim order had stated that if the plaintiff (Baba Ramdev) discovered any further URLs containing allegedly defamatory or offending content, these platforms could be issued notices after which they shall take down or block access to these URLs either on a global basis, or for the India domain, depending on from where the content was uploaded.

According to the interim order, if defendant social media platforms, after receiving a notice from the plaintiff are of the opinion that the content is not defamatory or violative, they shall intimate the plaintiff, after which the plaintiff would seek remedies in accordance with the law.

Incidentally, Facebook has contended in its appeal that though the plaintiff (Baba Ramdev) is aware of the identity of those who uploaded the allegedly defamatory content, they were not made parties to the law suit. Also, the injunction order was passed though there were alternate remedies available at the court's disposal, Facebook’s appeal has stated.

According to Facebook’s appeal, instead of imposing a global injunction, the court could've asked the petitioner (Baba Ramdev) to take legal action against those who uploaded the contested content.

The appeal claimed that the court had wrongfully interpreted Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, since nowhere has it been mentioned in that provision that it has any kind of extraterritorial application.

Facebook has contended in its appeal that Baba Ramdev never showed any strong prima facie case of “irreparable loss” justify seek final relief like a global injunction. Therefore, the court has erred in granting final relief at an interim stage of the case, according to Facebook’s appeal.

Facebook’s appeal stated that the court did not show any exigencies to warrant a global injunction and that taking down of the content in India, as per the court's earlier interim order, was adequate to deal with the reputational concerns of Baba Ramdev.

Facebook’s appeal stated that a global injunction violates principles of national sovereignty since the impugned judgment interferes with laws prevailing in other countries regarding online injunctions.

The appeal stated that if the present order is not reversed, it would also undermine immunities granted to appellants in other jurisdictions.

The next hearing of the case will be on December 7.