02 June,2021 11:49 AM IST | New Delhi | PTI
Photo used for representational purpose
Google LLC has contended that Information Technology rules for digital media are not applicable to its search engine, and urged the Delhi High Court on Wednesday to set aside a single judge order which applied the rules on the company while dealing with an issue related to removal of offending content from the internet.
The single judge's decision had come while dealing with a matter in which a woman's photographs were uploaded on a pornographic website by some miscreants and despite court orders the content could not be removed in entirety from the World Wide Web and "errant parties merrily continued" to re-post and redirect the same to other sites.
A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice to the Centre, Delhi government, Internet Service Providers Association of India, Facebook, the pornographic site and the woman, on whose plea the single judge's ruling had come, and sought their responses to Google's plea by July 25.
The court also said that it was not going to issue any interim order at this stage.
ALSO READ
Google faces new antitrust trial after ruling declaring search engine a monopoly
Google faces new antitrust trial after ruling declaring search engine monopoly
Google is blasted by UK watchdog for what it calls anti-competitive behaviour through digital ads
UK watchdog accuses Google of anti-competitive behaviour in digital ads business
Tamil Nadu CM Stalin bags deal with Google to train 2 million youth
Google has contended that the single judge, in his April 20 judgement, "mischaracterised" its search engine as a ''social media intermediary'' or ''significant social media intermediary'' as provided under the new rules.
"The single judge has misinterpreted and misapplied the New Rules 2021 to the appellant's search engine. Additionally, the single judge has conflated various sections of the IT Act and separate rules prescribed thereunder, and has passed template orders combining all such offences and provisions, which is bad in law," it has said in its appeal against the April 20 judgement.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.