Read Time: 06 minutes
The court emphasized that in order to ensure that delays do not impede the process of tracking missing persons, including children and minors, platforms and officials must adhere to the proper timelines. The court directed that “It is also necessary that the IOs are also properly acclimatized to the manner in which requests ought to be posted, how the portal is to be monitored and immediately upon receipt how the same is to be downloaded from these platforms.”
The Delhi High Court recently heard a writ petition filed by an aggrieved mother, whose teenage son has been missing since January 10, 2024. The woman approached the court, seeking directions against the Delhi Government and social media giant Meta. She sought a writ of habeas corpus to be issued against the respondents, for producing her son.
The case pertained to the sharing of information by these platforms with law enforcement agencies to trace the missing 19-year-old boy. The respondent, the State of NCT (National Capital Territory), stated that after the petition was filed, they had taken notice of this and filed three status reports. These reports recorded various steps taken to find the boy. As per the status report dated September 17, 2024, the police had written to Meta Platforms Inc., on 6th September, seeking information relating to the missing teenager’s Instagram Account.
However, the social media platform did not comply with this request, and the information sought was not supplied. Accordingly, the court directed that a notice be issued to the counsels representing Meta, Advocates Varun Pathak, and Swati Aggarwal, asking them to appear before the court and assist with obtaining the required information from Instagram.
During the latest hearing of this matter, Advocate Tejas Karia, representing Meta, submitted that the information was uploaded on the platform which is used by law enforcement agencies to communicate with Meta. The Standing Counsel for the State, Sanjay Lao, also affirmed that the information had been received by them.
Adv. Tejas Karia additionally mentioned that law enforcement agencies usually participate in training programs on how to engage with Meta’s portal.
The court directed social media platforms, including Google, Meta, Telegram, and LinkedIn to appear before the court on the next date of hearing. The bench comprising of Justices Pratibha M. Singh and Amit Sharma also stated that these platforms need to place on record their standard operating procedures (SOPs) to deal with such requests for information. Additionally, Mr. Lao was ordered to hold a meeting with concerned police officials and discuss, through a note, the challenges faced by them in dealing with social media platforms, as well as any training that they might require.
The court, while giving these directives, made some observations. Noting that in some habeas corpus petitions, there is a lag between the seeking of information by the police and the receipt of this from various platforms, the court scathingly observed that they have, “time and time again, requested counsels appearing for these platforms, to enable furnishing of the information expeditiously.”
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for October 8, 2024.
Case Title: Shabana V/s Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (W.P. (CRL)1563/2024)
Advocates -
For the State- Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao, with Advocate Priyam Aggarwal
For Meta - Advocates Tejas Karia and Varun Pathak
For WhatsApp- Advocate Swati Aggarwal
Please Login or Register
