Facebook did not violate rights: Bombay HC rejects right-wing org’s claim

Facebook told the Sanstha that as per the terms of service they have the right to permanently disable access to any account that breaches its community standards. This, the Sanstha alleged, was being violative of their fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution

The Bombay high court in Goa on Monday rejected a plea by Hindu extremist group Sanatan Sanstha to have its pages, which were taken down by social media company Facebook, restored.

Representational image. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The Sanatan Sanstha claimed in its appeal before the high court that Facebook’s action was high handed, arbitrary and violated their constitutional rights. It also said that Facebook blocking its pages amounted to usurpation of powers that are only vested with the state.

The high court, however, rejected the claims and said that blocking or unblocking of pages hosted on Facebook, would at the most be a contractual dispute.

“The dispute regarding blocking or unblocking of the petitioner’s (Sanatan Sanstha’s) Facebook pages, appears to be governed by the contractual relationship between the petitioner and respondents (Facebook) and normally purely contractual disputes between private parties cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the high court bench comprising justices MS Sonak and MS Jawalkar, said.

The Sanstha had told the court that it used these pages to spread the essence of their spirituality and allied matters, and Facebook’s action disabled it from communicating or propagating [its] philosophy and disabling its followers from accessing information that it posted on such pages.

Facebook told the Sanstha that as per the terms of service they have the right to permanently disable access to any account that breaches its community standards. This, the Sanstha alleged, was being violative of their fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution.

In response, advocate for Facebook Darius Khambata told the court that the petition was not maintainable because Facebook Inc and Facebook Online Services India are “neither a ‘State’ under article 12 of the constitution nor are they discharging any public functions.”

“The issue of blocking the Facebook pages, is a matter governed by contract and the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable to address a dispute over a contractual relationship between two private parties,” he said.

“The petitioner has no right to seek hosting or transmission of its information or its philosophical views on the platform provided by Facebook. Such a right is neither granted by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act (protection granted to intermediaries) nor for that matter, any other provision of the Information Technology Act,” Khambata said.

“All these matters are in the realm of contract and if at all the petitioner has any grievance, they will have to seek redressal before any appropriate forum which is empowered to adjudicate disputes between the two private parties,” he added.

The high court said that there was neither any assertion that Facebook answered the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution nor were there any serious to establish that these respondents indeed answer the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, or otherwise, discharge some public functions.

“Based on the sketchy and unclear pleadings in this matter, however, there is no case made out for grant of any declaratory relief in this petition. Even, otherwise, Adv (Shirish) Punalekar (advocate for Sanatan Sanstha) was unable to point out any provision under the Information Technology Act, based on which the petitioner could insist on maintaining a Facebook page on the platform provided… without agreeing to be bound by the contractual terms that may have been proposed,” the high court said.

“If there is some breach of contractual relationship involved in the blocking of the Facebook page then, it is for [them] to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum to secure redress. But, a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be an appropriate remedy for this purpose,” the bench said.

The controversial organisation Sanatan Sanstha, that is headquartered in Goa and has a significant presence in Maharashtra, is on the radar of investigating authorities in the murders of rationalists Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabholkar and MM Kalburgi as well as in the murder of Gauri Lankesh. Operatives of the Sanstha were also accused of attempting to plant a bomb at a crowded religious place in Margao in 2008 which exploded prematurely killing two persons who were ferrying it.