The High Court also noted that the Supreme Court had earlier rejected the same PIL by the same petitioner and the top court had not granted liberty to the petitioner to approach High Court.
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition against mobile application Truecaller which provides a mobile phone user with the identity of a caller from an unknown number [Ajay Shukla v Union of India & Ors].
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora remarked that the services like names and emails of the phone numbers being provided are a facility and even earlier, telephone directories with names and phone number of people used to be published.
“Previously phone directories used to be published. This is a facility,” the Court remarked.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Ajay Shukla alleging violation of privacy by Truecaller as it provides information related to third parties without their consent.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner told the Court that Truecaller is reading the phonebook of a user and then disclosing the addresses as well as emails and other details of people who have not even consented to the terms and conditions of Truecaller.
It was submitted that the facility provided by the application is also causing reputational damage since contact numbers can also be marked as ‘spam’.
However, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Shashank Garg appeared for the Union government and told the Court that the PIL is a ‘publicity interest litigation’ and the petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court with the same plea but it was dismissed.
The High Court examined the order and noted that the apex court has dismissed the plea without granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the High Court.
“This petition amounts to re-litigation. This will amount to abuse of process. Nothing about the Supreme Court proceedings has been disclosed in this writ petition. That is the beauty of it,” the Court remarked.
Therefore, it proceeded to dismiss the PIL.
