Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, observed that in numerous cases, Investigation Officers (IOs) are not fully aware of the procedures for obtaining information from various platforms, which leads to the loss of valuable time.

The court made these remarks in a writ petition submitted by a distressed mother, whose teenage son had been missing since January 10, 2024. Shabana, the petitioner, sought the court’s intervention against the Delhi Government and social media company Meta, requesting a writ of habeas corpus for the production of her son.

The case concerned the sharing of information by these platforms with law enforcement agencies to locate the missing 19-year-old. According to the status report dated September 17, 2024, the police contacted Meta Platforms Inc. on September 6, seeking details related to the missing teenager’s Instagram account.

However, the court noted that Meta failed to comply with this request, and the required information was not provided. Consequently, the court ordered representatives of Meta to appear before the court and facilitate the procurement of the necessary information from Instagram. 

During a recent hearing, it was revealed that responses to the court’s inquiries about the platforms’ cooperation with law enforcement in providing data for criminal investigations were filed by Meta Platforms Inc., WhatsApp LLC, Telegram FZ-LLC, Google LLC, and Reddit Inc.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing Meta, stated that the company had developed a Law Enforcement Online Request System (LEORS) for processing data disclosure requests from law enforcement agencies. 

Datar also highlighted Meta’s system for handling emergency requests, which often pertained to missing children and were processed within 18 to 30 minutes. He stressed that Meta cooperated closely with law enforcement by providing Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) such as usernames, email addresses, phone numbers, and registration data. However, he noted that Meta sometimes could not supply data not in its possession.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing WhatsApp, stated that the platform also received a high number of data disclosure requests, including urgent cases. WhatsApp indicated that it had responded to requests concerning terrorist activities within 12 minutes of receipt. Similar to Meta, WhatsApp disclosed BSI but did not have access to device-specific information such as the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI).

Senior Advocate Rajshekar Rao, representing Telegram, informed the court that Telegram had designated a nodal officer to address emergency requests and aimed to provide information promptly in urgent situations.

Advocate Neel Mason, appearing for Google, noted that Google operated its own Law Enforcement Request System (LERS) for processing data requests. He mentioned that Google had also set up a dedicated platform for the Indian government to handle content removal requests. A presentation on how to submit requests via LERS was shared with the court.

All platforms represented in the case expressed their commitment to full cooperation with law enforcement. They concurred that in cases of emergency, the 72-hour deadline set by Rule 3(1)(j) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, was viewed as a maximum timeframe, with most requests being fulfilled much sooner.

“Most of the platforms are unanimous on the position that when there are emergency requests made by Law Enforcement Agencies, the deadline of 72 hours, which is prescribed in the Rule 3(1)(j) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, is merely treated as a maximum time and in most case of emergencies, the same are dealt with and information is provided as quickly as possible”, the court noted. 

Standing Counsel Anurag Ahluwalia, for Union, informed the court that the MHA needed a week to compile its position on coordinating with the platforms for handling data requests from law enforcement nationwide. Consultations with stakeholders were ongoing to create a comprehensive framework for such coordination.

Given the habeas corpus nature of the petition, the court transferred the investigation to the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU), Crime Branch, for thorough efforts to locate the missing child. The AHTU was instructed to submit a status report on the investigation’s progress by the next hearing.

The court recognized that some Investigation Officers (IOs) might lack complete knowledge of the procedures for requesting information from different platforms, potentially leading to delays. 

To mitigate this, the court directed the Commissioner of Police at the Delhi Police Headquarters (PHQ) to coordinate with the platforms and draft a handbook for distribution to police stations, detailing data request procedures. The Commissioner was also tasked with organizing training sessions for police officials to ensure timely and effective collaboration with the platforms in serious cases.

The court ordered Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao, to facilitate coordination between the Commissioner of Police and the counsels representing the platforms. The MHA and MeitY were also directed to file their status reports by the next hearing, while the AHTU was asked to provide an updated status report on the missing boy case.

Accordingly, the court listed the matter for December 11, 2024. 

Case Title: Shabana v Govt (2024:DHC:8835-DB)