Social media companies Meta Platforms and Google LLC have formally opposed a petition in the Delhi High Court that seeks to force intermediaries to actively monitor and automatically remove alleged unlawful content. In separate written submissions, the technology firms argued that proactive screening of the massive volume of daily user uploads is both technically impracticable and legally untenable.
The legal battle stems from a petition filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh, who objected to the unauthorized recording and distribution of courtroom proceedings involving former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The High Court had previously raised the question of whether platforms could automatically delete posts that violate court rules, such as prohibitions against recording proceedings.
Meta Warns Against Role As Super Censor
In its July 4 filing, Meta argued that determining the legality of content cannot be done in isolation and requires a detailed, case-by-case assessment of context and origin. The company asserted that forcing platforms to perform such evaluations would compel them to independently adjudicate the lawfulness of user uploads, effectively turning them into a “super censor”—a role the Supreme Court of India has explicitly cautioned against.
Addressing the sheer scale of its operations, Meta stated that its platforms host billions of posts, comments, and interactions daily from over 2.9 billion global Facebook users and more than 1 billion Instagram users. Due to this immense volume, the company declared it impossible to locate or identify contested content without being provided with specific web addresses, or URLs.
Furthermore, Meta clarified that the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which mandate that intermediaries make reasonable efforts to prevent legal violations, do not obligate platforms to screen and censor all user-generated content prior to publication. The firm noted that under current legal frameworks, intermediaries are only required to act on orders from courts or authorized government agencies, rather than demands from private citizens.
Google Cites High Volume Of Video Uploads
Google echoed these concerns in its own filing on July 4, highlighting the dynamic nature of YouTube, where millions of videos are uploaded every hour globally. The company stated that it is impossible to proactively monitor every upload, gain specific knowledge of their contents, or sift through millions of files to determine if they contain unauthorized courtroom recordings.
According to Google, intermediaries should not be drawn into proxy legal battles. The company emphasized that platforms play no role in choosing what content is uploaded, and legal liability for any violations rests solely with the individual creators who upload the material.
Journalist Denies Wilful Disobedience
The petition by Singh also seeks contempt action against several individuals, including journalist Ravish Kumar, for allegedly sharing the court recordings. In a reply submitted on July 2, Kumar stated that he had already voluntarily removed the post out of institutional respect.
However, Kumar contested the allegations of wilful disobedience, pointing out that regulations governing the sharing and reporting of court proceedings in India are inconsistent and rapidly changing. He noted that navigating the overlapping rules across the Supreme Court, 25 High Courts, and various subordinate courts is challenging even for practicing lawyers. Kumar argued that expecting a journalist to know the specific details of the Delhi High Court’s 2025 Rules under such circumstances is legally unsustainable.
