Mumbai, Apr 30 (PTI) The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to grant relief to a Shiv Sena MLA on a PIL filed by him raising concerns over the alleged misuse of social media by influencers, comedians, and orally observed "misuse by the petitioner may be seen by others as free speech".
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik said the reliefs sought by Shiv Sena MLA Kiran Samant were general in nature, and noted he had an "efficacious remedy" available under the Information Technology Rules to lodge a complaint with the designated nodal officer for blocking such content.
Samant, in the PIL (public interest litigation), has alleged misuse of social media by influencers, content creators, comedians, and named the Union Ministry of Information and Technology, search engine giant Google, and stand-up comic Kunal Kamra as respondents.
Kamra recently faced severe flak for his show in Mumbai where he passed alleged derogatory remarks against Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who heads the Shiv Sena, the party to which the petitioner belongs.
Multiple FIRs for defamation have also been lodged against Kamra, including in Mumbai.
Samant, in his plea, said he was "disturbed by alarming trends where influential people, under the garb of free speech, are spreading misinformation and launching unwarranted attacks on the judiciary and shaking the very foundation of Indian democratic system."
The petition gave the example of alleged offensive remarks in Kamra's video of the show which was uploaded in March and immediately triggered a controversy.
To this, CJ Aradhe orally said, "What may be considered misuse by the petitioner (Samant) may be seen by others as freedom of speech. The petitioner cannot determine that."
Appearing for Kamra, senior advocate Darius Khambata said the law already provides remedies for grievances against online content, including seeking blocking of such content through appropriate channels.
The court referred to provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the 2009 Blocking Rules, which allow individuals to approach authorities concerned for content removal, even in emergencies.
Samant had not availed of these remedies and instead sought broadly worded directions from the court, which could not be granted, the HC observed.
The bench noted the ruling party legislator's request for setting up a censorship and vigilance committee to monitor social media falls within the domain of policymaking and cannot be ordered by the judiciary.
"The petitioner himself is a lawmaker. It is open for him to take appropriate action if so advised," the bench noted.