On June 30, the Karnataka High Court dismissed Twitter Inc’s petition challenging the Government of India’s blocking orders, issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY), u/s 69A of the Information Technology Act, directing the social media giant to take down 39 URLs.
The court’s single-judge bench, comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit, also imposed a Rs 50 lakh cost on Twitter, as the company did not give reasons for not complying with the Government of India’s blocking orders. The court directed Twitter to pay the costs within 45 days to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, and said that an additional Rs 5000 must be paid for every day the payment is delayed.
The court observed that the punishment for non-compliance with the blocking orders is 7 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine, however, the same did not deter Twitter. The court remarked that Twitter is not a farmer, but a billion-dollar company.
“Your client (Twitter) was given notices and your client did not comply…Punishment for non-compliance is 7 years imprisonment and unlimited fine. That also did not deter your client. So you have not given any reason why you delayed compliance, more than a year of delay…then all of sudden you comply and approach the Court. You are not a farmer but a billon dollar company,” the court said.
In June 2022, the Government of India sent a letter to Twitter, setting out consequences for non-compliance with the government’s blocking orders, including initiating a criminal case against the company’s Chief Compliance Officer and granting the company last opportunity to comply with the government’s blocking orders. The government further informed the company that if it fails to comply with the orders, then it would lose the safe harbour immunity available to it u/s 79(1) of the IT Act. Thereafter, the company moved the court.
Twitter’s Arguments
Twitter’s counsel argued that the blocking orders are “procedurally and substantially deficient of the provision” and “demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate.” The counsel also argued that the Government of India was not empowered to issue general blocking orders to block social media accounts and that the government’s orders must contain reasons to be communicated to the users. The social media giant further argued that a blocking order could only be issued when the content is in line with the grounds laid u/s 69A of the IT Act. The counsel further argued that Section 69A does not allow ‘wholesale’ blocking of accounts.
The company further asked how it could be asked to block user accounts, alleging that the same is muffling their freedom of speech when news relating to the same is circulated on television and print media. The counsel argued, “If on my platform 1200 accounts are blocked even when material is appearing in print and TV, then it is causing prejudice.”
Twitter’s counsel contended that the blocking order demonstrates excessive use of powers and is disproportionate, submitting that as per the jurisprudence laid down in the Shreya Singhal case, if the government finds a tweet objectionable, then it has to send a notice to the account holder asking why the content should not be pulled down. The counsel argued that blocking user accounts constitute a violation of the right to freedom of speech. “At the heart of Article 19 is the right to criticise… because we are a democracy,” the counsel submitted.
Government of India’s Arguments
The Government of India opposed Twitter’s petition. The government’s counsel Additional Solicitor General of India R Sankaranarayanan questioned the maintainability of the petition.
The ASG argued, “The petitioner being a foreign company cannot avail any remedy of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner company does not have a legal mandate to espouse the cause of twitter users/account holders. For espousing there should be statutory enablement like the Industrial Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, wherein the cause of workmen becomes legally espousable by others and more particularly trade unions”
“In absence of such a statutory enablement, the question of espousal will stand miles away. Moreover, such a mandate can arise only if there is a jural relationship between the account holders and petitioner company and not otherwise,” the ASG added.
The ASG argued, “Containing people who have posted content which is injurious to the security of nation or public order, the persons who are actually aggrieved are not them.”
The ASG contended that if a piece of news appears in a newspaper, it is at the newspaper’s discretion, however, on an intermediary platform like Twitter anyone can post and there is no discretion. The counsel further argued that as per IT Rules, 2021, Twitter is a “significant social media intermediary” and thus as per Rule 4, it is required to undertake additional due diligence. The counsel argued, “It is the duty of intermediary to provide details of account holder,” submitting that the micro-blogging platform did not respond to the government’s notices while miscreant users continue to post inciting content.
The ASG cited Supreme Court’s ruling in Anuradha Bhasin case and said, “The aim here is that you are entitled to do whatever you want on your platform, let all join, let there be as many view as there can be, let knowledge come from every quarter and let us enjoy it. But if it is going to affect the integrity, sovereignty of India or is going to create a public order, then naturally we will step in and either we will issue a take down notice or we will say block the account.”
