Disposed

Mrs. Sunitha v. State of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC18 Aug 2021WP/5503/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking deletion of a minor's pictures from social media by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Union of India, stating that the latter would then consider and act within eight weeks. No other action was taken in this order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit fresh representation to Respondent No. 8 within two weeks; Respondent No. 8 to pass orders on report within eight weeks.

Mrs. Sunitha Vs State of Telangana… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 5503 oF 2A21

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Mrs. Sunitha, W/o K.V.V. Sagar, Age. 53 years, Occ. House Wife, Rio C block 104 Fortune Towers, Madhapur, Hydera-bad, Telangana-S00081.

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangqna, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶14

Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road New Delhi- 11000'1 .

¶15

Google lndia Private Limited, Rep by its Managing Director, Unitech Signature Tower-ll Tower-B, Sector-15, Part-ll, Village Silokhera Gurgaon 122001 , Haryana

¶16

Twitter Communications lndia Private Limited, Rep by its l'/lanaging Director,^C- 20, G Block, Near N/CA Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra^(E) Mumbai.

¶17

Facebook lndia Online Services Private Limited, Rep by its lr/anaging^Director, Level^'1 7, Wing B, Two Horizon Center, Harizan Colony, Sector^{43, Gurugram,} Haryana 122022.

¶18

B. Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary,^N4inistry of Electronics^{of lnformatron} Technology, Electronlcs Niketan 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi^{Road, New Delhi} - 1 10003.

¶19

(R8 is impleaded as per C.O. dt. 1810812021 in lA.No. 212021^.)

¶20

.RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate^{writ or orderor direction declaring} the inaction of the Respondents in removing/deleting^{the picturesof the Petitioners} daughter from the websites and social^{media platforms (the URLS as enlistedunder} Annexure P-.1 ) as illegal and unco nstitutio nal^{and further directthe Respondentsto} forthwith remove/delete the^pictures of the^{Petitionersdaughter from the said} websites and social media^platforms.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High court may be pleased to direct} the Respondents to forthwith^{remove/delete the pictures of the Petitioners daughter} from the said websites and social media^{platforms, pending disposal of the Writ} Petition, as otherwise the Petitioner will^{be put to constant humiliationand mental} trauma

¶24

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRIS' VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR}

¶25

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos' 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME}

¶26

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos'4 & 8: SRI' SURYAKARAN REDDY' SC FOR CG} Counsel^{for the Respondent No' 5: SRI' SRIKANTH HARIHARAN}

¶27

Counsel for^{the Respr:ndent No' 6: SRI D NARENDRA NAIK}

¶28

Counsel^{for the Resp'cndent No' 7: SRI'VIVEK REDDY}

¶29

The Court made^{the following:}

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUN,IAR SHAVILI

¶31

v.P ,No.55 03 ()F 021

¶32

Q[tl)l:R:

¶33

This rvrit petirion is filed sceking thc follorving relieft

¶34

''l(r rr\Llc a \flt ,,1 \lan(laln ,,,r ln\ Lrlh(r IIfrLrtfilt. $flr r)r,,r{l(r ,,1 ,l crIL!) il(.liIr r lh. jnx.l L,|,,t l]r( r.,f,,rrLJ I\ rr r! r(tr!rg(i.l.j, g llr! f.1rrr.\ ,t tlr( l,!r lL,jr).r \ LlirLr!htlr rr(,r:r llr( tr.lr\rr(r . r(j .,,,11 ,f(\ri.i | ,i!, r.r .^.i . Jli ,r. I ':.rJ,l I f(trr \ Ir(,I. I,i li jti(!.r .nrJ irr, n.l i, | ,r,rl .| rl tL|iij.r J r(r ihr r(|, rLLl.)l. t,, ti, tl\i lr r(nr(iic J. ct. tlr! |r,.lLl,c, t,a thu l].1 1ron.r'\ l,LLr(hlrr lionr Ih. {lr(j rlchsilcs an{l r,)(rxl rredra pt t,ifi)]. lf{l Irasr sLrch (nh.r orJlrr or ()rdcr\ a\ rh. Hor'ble ( ()tln nta\ dccnr llt lnd proNr rn th. crrcumstanc$ of thc case

¶35

Heard Sri S,Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the pedtioner, leamed Govemment pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri Suryakaran Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing tor respondent Nos.4 and 8, Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for tespondent No.5, Sri D.Narendra Naik, learnecl cotrnscl :tp1'rcuring lrrr responclcnt No.(r ancl Sri .ivck Rctklv. lcirntcd counscl appcuring for rcspondcnt No.7.

¶36

Learncd counsel appcaring for the petitioncr contcnded that since the pictures of petitioner,s daughtcr have circulzrtcd on the social media and also in the u,cb site, she has givcn a representation to the rcspondents more particularly to rcspondent No.4 and also to the impleaded respondent No.g, but, so far, respondent Nos.4 and 8 have not taken any action on the said representadon, Learned counsel further contended that appropriare orders be passed in the writ petition directing the g,h respondent to take appropriate action, in accordance with lau,.

¶37

¶38

0+. l-earned Standing Counsel lor Central Government lppearing lirr respondents 4 and 8 contended that let the l)etitioner^{sut.,mits a freshrepresentationto respondent No.8, then} respondent No.8 *,ould take steps for redressal of grievance of the Petltloner'.

¶39

Flaving considered the rival submissions n-rade bv the learned coun,;el on either side, this Court is of the vievv that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner ro submir a representation afresh to respondent No,S within a period of two weeks frorn the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of sr:ch representation, respondcnt No.8 shall considcr the sarne and pass ap l>ropriatc orders in accordance *'ith lau,, rvithin a period of' r:igl-it \yeeks thereafter.

¶40

Accordinglv, the \lirit Pe tition is disposed of. No

¶41

c()sts.

¶42

NIisccllancotrs petitions, if anr', pcncling shall stanci

¶43

closcd.

¶44

Sd/.N. CHANDRA^{SEKHAR RAO} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶45

,TRUE^COPY// \ --

¶46

SECTION^OFFICER

¶47

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary, Home Department' State of Telangana' Secretariat} Buildings,^HYderabad'

¶48

Buildings,^HYderabad'

¶49

1. The Commissioner^{of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate' Gachibowli'} Hvderabad.

¶50

¶51

. 3i;loiifise^{officer' Cvber Crime Police Station' Cvberabad'}

¶52

-Bhu*'n'

¶53

1. The Secretary,^{trlinistry tiiclilrn"it'tiont'o"p"'t'-"ntof Telecommunications'} ZO Ashoka^{Road New Delhi-1 10001'}

¶54

Union of^{lndia' Sanchar}

¶55

1. The The^{Managing D'irector, e;A; i";i' Private Limited' Unitech Signature Tower-ll}

¶56

The The " T;;;r8, d"cior_15, part-tl, vittase Sitokhera Gurgaon 122001 ' Haryana 6. The Managing^{f)irector, i;iti;; i;t"nicationsIndia Private Limited'C-20' G} " ;i";[ N;r"; Nic,A Bandra Kurla Complex' Bandra (E) l'4umbai

¶57

7 The^{lrrlanagingtrirector,?a."0""r r"ii, online Services Private Limited'Level} 17, Wing^{B, Twr; Horizon Ct"t"t, U"i'un Colony' Sector 43' Gtrrugram' Haryana} 122022.

¶58

8 o;;CC^{to Sri S Vivek Chandra Sekhar'Advocale IOPUC]}

¶59

, O;; cC^{to sti. Suryakaran Reddv, SC for CG (OPUC)}

¶60

iO O"" CC^{to Sri stit inth Hariharan, Advocate(9P.U-C)}

¶61

\ r i. O." CC^{to Sri.D. NarendraNaik,Advocate (OPUC)} iz.o"" CC^{to Sri \rivek Reddy, Advocate} lOelCl. . ie.i*" CC.^{to GP for Home, nignCourtfor the State of Telangana} tourl 14.Two CD^CoPies.

1{x

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/08/2021

ORDER

WP.No.5503 of 2(t21

rtE 5TA 16:
a
y':*'
v
loif (')
O? SEP2O }<br>.t.,
$2\o
(2, .-{

¶68

Disposing of the WP

¶69

Without costs.

¶70

^N-\x

Mrs. Sunitha v. State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sunitha v. State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Krishnaiah, Secunderabad. Vs the Vice Chairman and M.D., and Another

M/s.Transgene Blotek Limited and 3 others Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and another

P.Poshetty, Patigalli,Nizamabad and 3 Others Vs the Npdc of Ap.,Ltd., Warangal and 2 Others

Md. Habeeb Rahaman, Nalgonda District. Vs the A.P. Transco, Hyd, and 3 Others

M/S Frontier Information Technologies, Sec-Bad and 1 Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyd and 1

S. Siva Kumar, Hyderabad Vs the A.P. Schdule Caste, Hyd