- (1.) On 19th September, 2016, the learned Solicitor General of India had submitted that there was a meeting with three software companies, namely, Google India Private Limited, Yahoo ! India and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. and prior to the meeting, the companies were asked to respond to certain questions. The said questions read as under: "(a) Whether respondents feel obligated to comply with the provisions of PC-PNDT Act, especially section 22 of the Act as directed by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 28.01.2015 (b) Whether Respondents are ready to publish a "Warning Message" on top of search result, as and when any user in India submits any "key word searches" in search engines, which relates to pre conception and pre natal deermination of sex or sex selection (c) Whether Respondents are ready to block "auto-complete" failure for "key word" searches which relates to pre-conception and/or pre-natal determination of sex or sex selection (d) Whether the words/phrases relating to pre-conception and pre natal determination of sex or sex selection to be provided and regularly updated by the Government for the 'key word search' or shall it be the onus of the Respondents providing search engine facilities (e) Whether it is feasible for the Respondents to place this Hon'ble Court order dated 28.01.2015 on their respective Home Page(s), instead of placing them on Terms of Service (TOS) pages (f) What is the suggested timeline to incorporate "Warning Message", blocking of the "auto-complete" feature for key word search & related terms etc. relating to pre-conception and pre-natal determination of sex or sex selection (g) Any other information as Respondents would like to share -
(2.) The responses of the companies were brought to the notice of the Court by way of a chart supported by an affidavit. On the previous occasion, the Court has produced the said chart and, thereafter, taken note of the submission of the learned Solicitor General that the companies are bound to develop a technique so that, the moment any advertisement or search is introduced into the system, that will not be projected or seen by adopting the method of "auto block". The said concept was clarified by stating that if any person tries to avail the corridors of these companies, this devise shall be adopted so that no one can enter/see the said advertisement or message or anything that is prohibited under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, 'the 1994 Act'), specifically under Section 22 of the said Act. Be it stated, at that juncture, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that the respondent-companies were still engaged in publishing advertisements or accepting messages which are violative of Section 22 of the 1994 Act. Needless to say, that was refuted by the respondent-companies.
(3.) The learned Solicitor General had submitted a 'proposed list of words' and put forth that the principle of "auto-block" should be applied to the said words. The Court had taken note of the "proposed list of words", which need not be repeated today. On behalf of the three companies, a submission was put forth that apart from the "proposed list of words", if anyone, taking recourse to any kind of ingenuity, feed certain words and something that is prohibited under the 1994 Act comes into existence, the "principle of auto block" shall be immediately applied and it shall not be shown.;