Facebook's counsel admitted at the time that as an intermediary, it "has no control over the content hosted on it and is in fact, prohibited from knowing the substance of the content on their platform or exercising any control over the same except as prescribed by (Indian) law."
"They cannot be permitted to take contradictory stands in different jurisdictions. Thus, for example in the United States of America, Facebook projected itself in the category of a publisher, giving them protection under the ambit of the First Amendment of its control over the material which are disseminated in their platform. This identity has allowed it to justify moderation and removal of content. Conspicuously in India, however, it has chosen to identify itself purely as a social media platform, despite its similar functions and services in the two countries. Thus, dependent on the nature of controversy, Facebook having almost identical reach to population of different countries seeks to modify its stand depending upon its suitability and convenience," India's top court said.