Shyam Divan, KV Viswanathan, Sajan Poovayya, Amarchand to defend Google, Microsoft in PIL against online content on Sex determination

The Supreme Court today took a stern view of the stand taken by the Central government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking stalling of online content and advertisements on pre-natal sex determination..A Division Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and UU Lalit criticised the government for its stand that it might not be feasible to block websites hosting objectionable content due to “their hosting outside the country”..The PIL was filed by one Sabu Mathew George (Petitioner) in 2008 seeking ban on online content on pre-natal sex determination which are allegedly in violation of the provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Search engines, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are arraigned in the suit as respondents along with the Central government..Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Sajan Poovayya are representing Google. Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan is representing Microsoft along with a team from Amarchand Mangaldas led by Partner Manu Nair while Advocate Anupam Lal Das is appearing for Yahoo. Advocate Sanjay Parikh is appearing for the Petitioner..When the hearing began today, advocates appearing for Google, Yahoo and Microsoft sought time to file reply to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the Petitioner. The Court allowed the same and then proceeded to criticise the stand taken by the Department of Information Technology, Government of India in the counter affidavit filed by it on 16th August, 2010. The said affidavit contained the following:.“The pre-natal sex determination is an offence in India under PC & PNDT Act. However, it may not be an offence in other countries. The information published on the websites is generally aimed at for wider, world wide dissemination and caters to the needs to many countries and may not be for the Indian citizens. Also, most of these websites are hosted outside the country. Blocking of such sites advertising pre-natal sex determination may not be feasible due to their hosting outside the country. Moreover, some of the websites provide good content for medical education and therefore blocking of such websites may not be desirable.”.The Court took strong objection to the aforesaid para in the affidavit and noted the following in its order:.“As we understand from the affidavit, it reflects a kind of helplessness by the said deponent. That apart, we do not appreciate the manner in which the stand has been expressed in paragraph (s) of the counter affidavit, that has been reproduced hereinabove.Mr. Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his turn, has submitted that other countries have been able to control such advertisements, which violate the laws of their countries by way of entering into certain kind of agreement, developing technical tools and issuing appropriate directions.In our considered opinion, an effort has to be made to see that nothing contrary to laws of this country are advertised or shown on these websites.”.The Court then asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to be present for the next hearing to assist the Court in the matter “as it involves technical issues”..The matter is now listed for December 15 at 2 pm..Read the order of the Supreme Court below..Image of Shyam Divan taken from here.