Can't Publicly Disclose Details Of Designated Officers: Google To High Court

Google stated it has appointed a grievance officer whose particulars are publicly accessible (File)

New Delhi:

US-based Google LLC has informed the Delhi Excessive Court docket that names and identities of its designated officers in India can’t be disclosed publicly as they’ve been appointed to coordinate with authorities authorities with regard to elimination of unlawful content material as per regulation or disclosure of person info.

Google stated that disclosing names and identification of the designated officers would defeat the aim of appointing them as they’d be “distracted and encumbered” by pubic dealing which in flip would “diminish” their skill to well timed and successfully reply to pressing authorities requests.

The submissions had been made in its affidavit filed in response to a PIL by former RSS idealogue KN Govindacharya looking for instructions to Google, Fb and Twitter to reveal details about their designated officers in India as required below the Data Expertise (IT) Guidelines.

The petition, filed by way of advocate Virag Gupta, has claimed that within the absence of particulars of designated officers, there may be “no clear mechanism to implement justice”.

Opposing the competition, Google has stated that neither the IT Act nor the foundations framed below it direct notifying the designated officers.

They solely present that such designated officers be put in place for coordinating with the federal government authorities, it added.

It has stated that for addressing grievances of the customers of its companies, it has appointed a grievance officer whose particulars are publicly accessible at –

Govindacharya has additionally sought instructions to the Centre to make sure elimination of faux information and hate speech circulated on the three social media and on-line platforms.

Google, which supplies a wide range of web associated companies like a search engine and an internet video streaming platform (YouTube), has denied the petitioner’s claims of arbitrary regulation of content material and stated that it has a set of insurance policies which regulate content material which might be clearly objectionable and inappropriate.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here