T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4912/2024
T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED AND ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Pranav Jain, Mr. Anurag Mishra, Mr. Kumar Kshitij and Mr. Rudraksh Kaushal, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Kartik Baijal and Mr. Aryan, Advocates for UOI
Mr. Tejas Karia, Mr. Varun Pathak, Ms. Amee Rana, Ms. Vibhuti Vasisth and Mr. Tejpal Singh Rathore, Advocates for R-2
% Date of Decision: 01st May, 2024.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)
CM APPL. 25089/2024
1. The present application has been filed by the Petitioners seeking a direction to Respondent No. 2 to restore its Instagram handle @bazaarindia (IG account). The Petitioner No. 1s IG account was disabled by Respondent No. 2 on 15th March, 2024 and its appeal against the said action was rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide e-mail dated 27th March, 2024. In these facts, the Petitioner filed the writ petition aggrieved by the actions of Respondent No. 2.
2. This Court vide interlocutory order dated 04th April, 2024 granted liberty to the Petitioner No. 1 herein to avail its remedy of appeal against Respondent No. 2s decisions dated 15th March 2024 and 27th March, 2024 before the Grievance Appellate Committee constituted by Respondent No. 1 under Rule 3-A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (Rules 2021).
3. In accordance with the said order, the Petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal on 5th April, 2024, however, the Grievance Appellate Committee vide its order dated 15th April, 2024 rejected the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner No. 1 has not approached the Grievance Officer, appointed by Respondent No. 2 (first round of appeal).
4. The Petitioner No. 1, thereafter on 16th April, 2024 filed a complaint1 with the Grievance Officer of Respondent No. 2 impugning the decision dated 15th March, 2024, which complaint as per the Petitioner was rejected on 17th April, 2024 by the Grievance Officer with a two-line response received on e-mail.
5. On the basis of the said email reply dated 17th April, 2024 of the Grievance Officer, Petitioner No. 1 has filed a fresh appeal before the Grievance Appellate Committee on 17th April, 2024, which is pending adjudication till date (second round of appeal). The said appeal is numbered as 1197/2024 and the Petitioners are aggrieved by its non-adjudication.
6. Respondent No. 2 entered appearance on 30th April, 2024 and stated that the email reply dated 17th April, 2024 impugned in appeal no. 1197/2024 is not the decision of the Grievance Officer but an automated response from the system. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, however, offered to facilitate the matter and assisted the Petitioner No. 1 to file a fresh complaint with the Grievance Officer on 30th April, 2024. Accordingly, a fresh complaint2 was registered by Petitioner No. 1 on 30th April, 2024 and Respondent No. 2 undertook to have the same decided expeditiously.
7. The matter was taken up for hearing today and at the hearing learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 handed over the decision of the Grievance Officer to the complaint registered on 30th April, 2024. The said decision is recorded in email dated 30th April, 2024, which reads as under:
From: FB GO India
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 6:34:27 PM
To: himanshu sinha@aajtak.com