The recent decision of the Tripura High Court involved the stay of an order that required WhatsApp, a messaging app, to disclose the originator of a chat containing a fabricated resignation letter attributed to Chief Minister Manik Saha [Whatsapp LLC v. The Union of India].
A division bench consisting of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice T Amarnath Goud granted permission for the police to continue their investigation into the first information report (FIR) filed in relation to this matter.
Furthermore, the Court has issued a notice regarding WhatsApp's petition and scheduled a hearing for December 15.
The Court's order states, "In the meantime, the impugned order dated 27.05.2023 shall be stayed. It is important to note that the investigating agency is permitted to proceed with the investigation regarding the alleged offense."
This interim order was granted in response to a petition filed by WhatsApp against a trial court order that authorized the police to request the Nodal Officer of WhatsApp to disclose the originator of the message in question.
The FIR was registered on May 25 at the New Capital Complex Police Station based on a complaint alleging the circulation of a forged resignation letter attributed to the Chief Minister on social media.
In addition to accusing forgery of Chief Minister Saha's signature, the complainant expressed concern that the letter was being disseminated to tarnish the Chief Minister's reputation.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing WhatsApp, acknowledged that Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (IT Rules) sets forth certain conditions under which a court can direct a significant social media intermediary to disclose the first originator of a message.
However, it was noted by Rohtagi that the provision in question includes a stipulation that such an order can only be issued for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating, prosecuting, or punishing an offense related to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, incitement to an offense related to the aforementioned, or in relation to rape, sexually explicit material, or child sexual abuse material.
Furthermore, it was argued that the second stipulation mandates that no such order shall be issued if there are less intrusive means available to identify the originator of the information.
Rohtagi contended that there was no issue of public order or imminent threat to public order in the present case. Additionally, it was pointed out that the Judicial Magistrate did not document the existence of any tangible threat in this case.
It was also highlighted that Rule 4 (2) of the IT Rules was invoked in this case just two days after the FIR was filed, without indicating any threat to public order.
In opposition to WhatsApp's request for interim protection, Advocate General SS Dey argued that the messaging app had no legal standing to object to the disclosure of the first originator of the message.
Dey also argued that none of the accused individuals had approached the Court to object to such disclosure.
After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Court granted WhatsApp interim relief, as it found that the trial court did not specifically record the extent of any threat to public order in the present case, if any, as required by Rule 4(2).
WhatsApp was represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi and Advocates Raju Datta and Tejas Karia.
The State government was represented by Advocate General SS Dey and Additional Public Prosecutor S Ghosh. Deputy Solicitor General of India B Majumdar appeared on behalf of the Union of India. Advocate A Chakrabortyy also appeared as a respondent.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Whatsapp Tripura High Court IT Rules 2021 first originator of information
