Patna: The Patna High Court on Wednesday went down a lot on social media giants for failing to report on the contents of rough on their platform against former Indian chairmen and Supreme Court judges and the Patna High Court next to the former United Law and other officials.
Alleged rough contents posted on various social media platforms by Advocates, Dinesh, from the Patna High Court.
The court has ordered to oppose social media giants such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp and Meta as respondents in this case.
The court was also directed to oppose the state police violation unit (Eou) of the state police as respondents in this case.
Eou is a nodal agent to handle Cybercrime cases in the state.
The court also directed Eou to register FIR, was a team of experts and investigated various materials and violations carried out by advocates and took action in accordance with the law against it.
“This action must be brought forward with the judiciary without being threatened by one individual wrong.
Eou will also investigate the involvement of others in this illegal activity,” the court observed.
Justice bench Sandeep Kumar, holding hearing for anticipatory guarantee petitions that have been rejected on October 21, observing that under the law, harassment must be reported to the police, the social media platform has failed in the task.
Therefore, this court took a problem, it was observed.
The court also attracted Eou because of his failure to take any action against people who made unpleasant comments and posts on the social media against the judge of the Patna High Court, Patna, and then the Minister of Law Unity even though it had issued a memo on January 21.
This year to take action against people who do unpleasant comments by using dirty language to the minister, lawmakers, MLA and government officials.
The High Court also directed that an action taken by the report (ATR) must be submitted before Eou ADG on Friday and asked him to stay present that day.
In addition, the bench also directed Eou to investigate another Cybercrime case submitted by Advocate Pratap Sharma with the Rajiv Nagar police station in Patna, but the police could not investigate.
The court gave a month to submit a report about it.
On Wednesday, the court took Dinesh’s problems called ‘very disturbing’ while dealing with Cyberrime and appointed Manu Tripurari as Amicus Curiae in this case.
The original things are in the nature of the other cases of criminals where the defendant, Shiv Kumar, has prayed for anticipatory guarantees in the case of cyber fraud with the police station in Nawada.
The bench has rejected its request on October 21 this year and increases the ambit case by first seeking Cyberrime details that occurred in Nawada from SP and then from ADG (modernization) on government measures to control the Cybercrime and the steps taken by the state police headquarters big.
The court has signed the Central Financial Intelligence Unit and Bank India’s reserve as a party in a guarantee problem during the last trial on November 29.