The big message in the Supreme Court’s Facebook judgement

Why read this story?

Editor's note: One of life’s idiosyncrasies is that finer details matter. Sometimes the strangest of stories emerge from footnotes, hidden in plain sight.  In legal judgements, the equivalent is obiter dictum, a Latin phrase for “that which is said in passing”. It refers to the remarks that are not about the final judgement, but mere observations made by the judiciary during the course of a lawsuit. They are not law; they don’t have a binding effect. But what they provide for governments, academicians, legislators and lawyers is judicial opinion and context. Much like the precious footnotes, these remarks too are largely ignored. This story is about one such recent judgement (and the remarks therein) involving Facebook in India. This month, the Supreme Court of India pronounced a significant order involving Facebook’s managing director in India, Ajit Mohan, and the Delhi legislative assembly. A quick catch-up is in order here. Last year, a committee—Peace and Harmony Committee—was formed by the legislative assembly of Delhi to look into the role of Facebook (and of other factors) in the occurrence of communal riots in the …