TechNova Digital Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is a globally recognized leader in the Information Technology industry, renowned for its cutting-edge innovations and extensive digital ecosystem. The company operates a diverse range

CS Professional · Artificial Intelligence, Data Analytics and Cyber Security - Laws and Practice · PYQS · December 2025
TechNova Digital Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is a globally recognized leader in the Information Technology industry, renowned for its cutting-edge innovations and extensive digital ecosystem. The company operates a diverse range of online services, including an Online Content Platform that hosts a wide array of digital content such as news, current affairs, blogs, and audio-visual materials, and attracts millions of daily active users from various regions worldwide. It's social media platform VibeNest enables users to connect, share posts, exchange multimedia content, and participate in live discussions. It also offers secure and user-friendly email services to individuals and organizations that support integration with third-party applications and cloud storage for seamless communication. Headquartered in India, with operational offices in Europe, North America, and Southeast Asia, and serves a global user base exceeding 10 million registered accounts across all its platforms. Known for its technological advancements, but recently under scrutiny for challenges in data privacy, misinformation control, and timely grievance redressal. TechNova manages an Aadhaar-based identity authentication service integrated with its digital content platform but concerns arose regarding the collection, storage, and use of biometric and demographic data without explicit consent safeguards. TechNova's online content platform is facing increasing criticism for being a hub of fake news, hate speech, and illegal content. During the recent state elections, several unverified posts spread rapidly across the platform, shaping voter perceptions and sparking public unrest. In another instance, a false rumor about a health emergency went viral, leading to panic buying and street-level protests. These incidents exposed serious vulnerabilities in TechNova's content moderation processes, fact-checking mechanisms, and overall responsiveness to user grievances. TechNova's popular social media platform, "VibeNest" faced an incident where a flaw in its popular media platform integration feature "View As" was exploited, allowing hackers unauthorized access to the million-user accounts, including third-party apps linked through social login. This led to the theft of access tokens for thousands of accounts, exposure of personal information as name, email/phone numbers of 20 thousand users, and additional sensitive details like gender, religion, and location leaked for 30 thousand accounts. The company taken technological safeguards and patch and upgrade the "View As" feature with multi-layer authentication and role-based access control and implement end-to-end encryption for access tokens and sensitive data. TechNova suffered a sophisticated cyberattack on its centralized database that managed client credentials, financial transactions, and personal information. Hackers exploited a vulnerability in the company's web application to gain unauthorized access to its servers. They tampered with computer source code, altering transaction logs and misdirecting payments. Attackers used advanced techniques to erase traces of their intrusion, making it difficult for the incident response team to trace their activities. This breach compromised over 500,000 user accounts. To strengthen the Company's defensive perimeter, the configuration and performance of the firewalls across all data centres were evaluated. They saw them not as passive barriers but as active components of threat management. The latest generation of firewalls in use had intrusion prevention systems capable of identifying malicious patterns in network traffic and blocking them before damage occurred. However, they found that the firewall policies in some regional facilities were overly permissive, allowing unnecessary inbound connections. This was promptly rectified, with tighter rules and regular review schedules introduced to ensure that only essential traffic passed through. A legal challenge emerged when certain politically sensitive posts were taken down without court orders, leading to accusations of violating citizens' free speech rights online on social media platforms. It would be very difficult for intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. to act when millions of requests are made and the intermediary is then to judge as to which of such requests are legitimate and which are not. TechNova faced major challenges in data privacy, cybersecurity, and content moderation, including unauthorized access, misuse of Aadhaar data, and fake news proliferation. These incidents exposed gaps in grievance redressal, consent management, and compliance with IT regulations. While corrective measures were adopted, a proactive privacy-by-design appraoch and stronger adherence to IT Rules 2021 are essential to restore user trust and regulatory compliance. In the above case scenario, answer the following questions: "It would be very difficult for intermediaries like Google, Facebook, etc. to act when millions of requests are made and the intermediary is then to judge as to which of such requests are legitimate and which are not'. In light of the above statement, how can a legal framework be established for accusations of violating citizens free speech rights in judicial proceedings?

Answer & Explanation:

In 2015, in the landmark Shreya Singhal judgement, the Supreme Court for the first time recognized the Indian citizen's free speech rights over the Internet by striking down and declaring unconstitutional the draconian Section 66A of the IT Act, which provided for punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services. Further, regarding intermediary liability, the Court held that "Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3) (b) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to such material. Similarly, the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2011 are valid subject to Rule 3 sub-rule (4) being read down in the same manner as indicated in the judgment." The Court also observed that "it would be very difficult for intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. to act when millions of requests are made and the intermediary is then to judge as to which of such requests are legitimate and which are not." Subsequently, in the case of Kamlesh Vaswani v Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 177 of 2013), the Supreme Court issued directions to intermediaries to disable specific content where a website operating child abusing contents were sought to be restricted.

Topics: Intermediary Liability and Free Speech

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic