Google said it has appointed a grievance officer whose details are publicly available (File)
New Delhi:
Google LLC, based in the United States, told the Delhi High Court that the names and identities of its designated agents in India could not be released publicly as they were appointed to coordinate with government authorities to remove illegal content in accordance with the law or the disclosure of information about users.
Google has said that disclosing the names and identities of the designated agents would defeat the purpose of naming them because they would be “distracted and cluttered” by public relations, which in turn “would diminish” their ability respond quickly and effectively to urgent government requests.
The observations were made in his affidavit filed in response to a PID by former RSS idealist KN Govindacharya requesting instructions from Google, Facebook and Twitter to disclose information about their designated agents in India, as required by the rules relating to information technology (IT).
The petition, filed through lawyer Virag Gupta, said that in the absence of details on the designated officers, there was “no clear mechanism for enforcing justice”.
Opposing the claim, Google said that neither information technology law nor the rules made under it directly notify designated officers.
They only plan for such designated officers to be put in place to coordinate with government authorities, he added.
He stated that to deal with the grievances of users of his services, he had appointed a grievance officer whose details were publicly available at –https: //www.google.co.in/intl/en/contact/grievance -officating. html.
Govindacharya also requested instructions from the Center to ensure the removal of false news and hate speech from the three social networks and online platforms.
Google, which provides a variety of Internet-related services, such as a search engine and an online video streaming platform (YouTube), has denied the petitioner’s allegations of arbitrary content regulation and has stated that it has a set of policies governing clearly objectionable content. and inappropriate.
