Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a criminal complaint filed by M/s. Visaka Industries against Google India Private Limited, where the appellant was summoned for allegedly hosting defamatory articles published by a third party. The complaint alleged that the articles harmed the reputation of the complainant, a public limited company manufacturing asbestos cement sheets. The appellant sought to quash the summons under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arguing that it was merely an intermediary and not liable for the content published by others. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, did not exempt the appellant from liability, especially since it failed to act upon the notice regarding the defamatory content. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the appellant did not take necessary steps to block the defamatory material and thus could not claim protection under the law. The court also addressed the distinction between the roles of intermediaries and publishers, emphasizing that mere hosting of content does not absolve an intermediary from liability if it has knowledge of the unlawful content. The court concluded that the appellant could be held liable for the defamatory statements made by the first accused, reinforcing the principle that intermediaries must exercise due diligence to avoid liability for third-party content.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Liability of Intermediaries - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 499, 500 - The court held that the appellant, as an intermediary, could not claim exemption under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as it failed to take action against defamatory content despite being notified. The court emphasized that the intermediary's role does not absolve it from liability if it does not exercise due diligence (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, as an intermediary, could be held liable for defamatory content published by a third party.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the appellant could not claim exemption under Section 79 of the IT Act due to failure to act against defamatory content.
Law Points
- Defamation
- Liability of Intermediaries
- Section 79 IT Act
- 2000
- Section 499 IPC
- Section 482 CrPC
