Summary
In proceedings against online promotion of prohibited sex selection, the Court reviewed earlier blocking and nodal-agency directions and required a coordinated expert solution. It directed a meeting with the petitioner’s team and search-engine representatives within six weeks, while preserving the distinction between offending content and lawful access to information.
Issues
- What coordinated measures should address online material contravening the prohibition on sex-selection advertising.
- How the blocking arrangements relate to lawful access to information.
Provisions considered
- Section22, Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994The prohibition reaches online advertisements and communications promoting prohibited sex determination or selection; search-engine compliance and expert coordination must secure its mandate. (¶¶ 16, 18–21, 28–30)
Held
- Earlier directions required in-house expert bodies and an auto-block mechanism for prohibited material, alongside a nodal-agency complaint route requiring deletion within36hours of notification. The judgment reviewed these arrangements in addressing continuing complaints. (¶ 18–20)
- The Court reiterated the distinction between unlawful content and lawful information searches. The restrictions addressed violations of section22; an innocuous search such as medical tourism could proceed provided its content did not defeat that prohibition. (¶ 21)
- The Nodal Agency and Expert Committee must meet with assistance from the petitioner and his team, calling representatives of Google India, Yahoo India and Microsoft Corporation(I), who must attend and offer suggestions. All proposed possibilities must be submitted in writing, and the meeting must occur within six weeks. (¶ 28)
- The search engines must cooperate constructively toward a satisfactory solution. The Court did not prescribe the technical nature of that solution; the obligation was to find effective measures consistent with the Act and earlier orders. (¶¶ 25, 28–30)
Result
Writ petition disposed of without costs with directions for the coordinated meeting and cooperation. Petitioner given liberty to file a fresh writ petition if further grievance arises.