The Delhi High Court’s landmark decision in X v. Union of India (2022) addresses the scope of responsibility that online intermediaries, such as search engines and website hosts, have under India’s Information Technology (IT) Act — particularly in the context of non-consensual intimate images (NCII) published or disseminated online. This judgment is a significant development in Indian digital rights law and provides critical clarification on how intermediary obligations intersect with individual rights to privacy and dignity.
Background and Core Issues
The case emerged when private photographs, taken from the petitioner’s social media accounts without consent, appeared on a pornographic website along with derogatory captions. Recognizing the severe social, psychological, and reputational harm such exposure could inflict, the petitioner sought the removal of these images and measures to prevent their further dissemination. This called into question the effectiveness and scope of India’s “notice and takedown” regime under the IT Act and the legal obligations of intermediaries over unlawful third-party content.
Key Findings of the Court
The High Court emphasized that the uploading of the petitioner’s images constituted an offence under Section 67 of the IT Act, since the only purpose of posting them was to appeal to viewers’ prurient interests and inflict harm. The Court stressed the necessity for “immediate and efficacious remedy” to counter “ostracization and stigmatization” likely to result from such online exposure. It directed law enforcement agencies to remove or disable access to the offending content on all online platforms and instructed major search engines to de-index such content from their search results.
Section 67 in The Information Technology Act, 2000
Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
Global De-Indexing and Proactive Monitoring
A crucial aspect of the decision was the understanding of the internet’s inherently global reach. The Court acknowledged that for the remedy to be effective, making content non-searchable “even within India” might require intermediaries to take action on a global scale, not just domestically. Further, the judgment made clear that intermediaries are not merely passive conduits; they possess “the ability, the capacity, and the legal obligation to disable access to offending content” even if they do not directly host it. The Court required search engines and platforms to adopt proactive measures to locate and prevent the re-uploading of removed NCII, marking a shift from a purely reactive “notice and takedown” system to one emphasizing prevention of repeated harm.
Balancing Free Speech and Privacy
Importantly, the Court did not call for prior restraint or blanket bans, recognizing the importance of safeguarding free speech. Directions to intermediaries were required to be “proportionate, specific, and possible to carry out.” The Court distinguished this situation from earlier Supreme Court precedent (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India), noting that the IT Act and Rules now provide a comprehensive framework giving victims enforceable rights to prompt removal of unlawful content, particularly private or intimate material
Impact and Significance
This decision significantly expands the statutory duties of intermediaries in India, holding them to higher standards where privacy violations are involved—especially with NCII. The judgment affirms the right of individuals to “control their existence on the internet” as part of the constitutional rights to privacy and dignity, serving as an essential precedent for victim protection and responsible intermediary conduct in India’s rapidly evolving digital ecosystem