New Delhi: The Karnataka high court on Tuesday, July 26, issued notice to the Union government in a plea by social media giant Twitter challenging numerous orders by the government seeking the blocking of content on the platform.
According to Twitter’s legal counsel, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) has directed the social media platform to block as many as 1,100 accounts, Live Law reported.
Rohtagi also submitted that as per the platform’s rules, users must be provided with reasons for why their accounts have been blocked and that the Union government has failed to provide reasons for their blocking orders.
“We are answerable to the account-holders why their accounts are blocked. If this continues, my whole business will close,” Live Law quoted Rohtagi as saying.
Twitter had moved the writ petition on July 5 in which it had challenged the MEITY’s blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act, contending that several blocking orders were “procedurally or substantively deficient of the provision” and “demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate”.
Also read: Twitter’s Pushback: Control Freak Government Forcing Companies to Stand for Freedoms
Under the IT Act, blocking orders for online content can be issued only in cases where the MEITY has determined that blocking is necessary under specific grounds detailed in Section 69A – threats to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with neighbouring states, maintenance of public order, or to prevent the incitement to commit any cognisable offence relating to the above-mentioned matters.
In its petition, Twitter also claimed that the MEITY had sent it a letter threatening consequences for failing to comply with the blocking orders, such as criminal proceedings against the company’s chief compliance officer and the stripping away of Twitter’s safe harbour immunity, available to social media intermediaries under Section 79(1) of the Act.
The Union government had earlier given Twitter until July 4 to comply with all past government orders, threatening to take away its intermediary status if it didn’t. Without this status and immunity, the platform would be liable for all tweets posted on it.
During the course of the hearing, the bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit allowed Twitter to place the blocking orders before the court in a sealed cover and directed it to share all documents in a sealed cover to the counsel for the Union government.
The counsel for the government also requested an in camera (behind closed doors) hearing, which the court said it would consider.
Citing the fact that solicitor general of India Tushar Mehta is currently suffering from a COVID-19 infection, the court posted the matter for hearing on August 25.
Also read: Understanding the Nuances to Twitter’s Standoff With the Modi Government
The Union government has consistently asked Twitter to remove content and block certain accounts or hashtags at different times over the past four years. However, the stand-off between the tech company and the government came to a head in February last year when the MEITY reportedly told Twitter to block around 250 handles, most of them posting regular updates on the nation-wide farmers’ protests that were underway at the time.
The handles which were blocked included those of Caravan magazine, as well as accounts which were regularly disseminating information regarding the protests, such as @tractor2twittr, the official handle of the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, and others.
Although Twitter initially complied with the ban, it restored most of the accounts by the end of the same day (February 1); a move which reportedly drew the ire of the government, following which the stand-off intensified.
Since then, Twitter has been asked to remove tweets and block handles in matters dealing with various issues, such as alleged COVID-19 misinformation and those critical of the government’s COVID response, accounts allegedly supportive of Khalistan, and so on.
Twitter even alleged in its petition that it had received orders to block official handles of opposition politicians, which amounts to a crackdown on free speech.