“It is a case where summons were issued without application of mind by the trial court as there was no material against me(Yahoo India),” said Senior advocate Arvind Nigam, appearing for Yahoo India.
Nigam continued noting that the order of the magistrate and the complaint have been dealing with alleged objectionable material retrieved from various websites including Zombie, Orkut, Youtube, Facebook and Blogspot. However, none of them pertains to Yahoo.
Responding to the complaint filed by a journalist, Vinay Rai, he firmed his stand, saying that Yahoo India should not be part of the 20 websites, which have been summoned, as no objectionable material has been downloaded from Yahoo India.
He said, “I am not a social networking site like other accused in the case. I only provide email and chat services. Moreover, no objectionable material has been attributed to me and hence my case is different from others.”
Following the response, Justice Kait asked, “Then why you have been made an accused?” while allowing the plea of Yahoo that its case be heard separately.
Briefing about the case, the summon was issued by a lower court had on December 23 to 21 websites for allegedly committing offenses of criminal conspiracy, sale of obscene books and obscene objects to young persons. The Centre was confident that its filing with the lower court would have things in its favor, as it noted that there was sufficient material to proceed against 21 websites for alleged offenses of promoting enmity between classes and causing prejudice to national integration.
These issues in India have been critically noticed, and it was said that it could harm the country significantly.
Talking about the main parties of the deferred hearing, Google India and Facebook India’s petitions, it was noted on Thursday that the HC had deferred the hearing on the petitions of Google India and Facebook India to 2 February.
However, Google India and Facebook India even had clarifications to make, as they had also moved the high court against the magistrate’s order. They said that there should be quashing of the summon as they did not commit any offense.
Â