Centre Tells Karnataka High Court in Twitter vs. Centre: Twitter Not Entitled to any Relief
Centre Tells Karnataka High Court in Twitter vs. Centre: Twitter Not Entitled to any Relief
The Centre reiterated before the Karnataka High Court that Twitter being a foreign entity is not entitled to any relief in the case filed by it challenging the blocking orders issued by the government.
Additional Solicitor General R Sankarnarayanan appearing for the government submitted, that Twitter being a foreign entity could not claim relief citing fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and in the absence of relevant legislation, it could not promote the rights of account holders.
“They are not entitled to protection under Article 19, as it is a foreign body corporate and foreign entity. Under Article 14, there is nothing arbitrary and section 69 (A) has been properly followed. Moreover, failure to give notice to an account holder is not a factor which would vitiate the proceedings. Therefore, they are not entitled to any relief,” he argued.
Having previously made a reference to a UK court decision in favor of blocking social media accounts, the ASG went on to cite the case of Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India, where the petition to fully restore internet to Jammu and Kashmir was not decided in the favor of the petitioner. In this case, the ASG took note of the test that was applied, which was that in such cases there would have to be a pursuit of the aim of the state, a rational connection between the measures taken and the objective, as well as proportionality. He pointed out that it was all right for people to join a platform but it became an issue if national integrity and sovereignty were threatened.
The ASG also referred the decision passed by the Madras High Court case where it was sought to link Aadhaar cards for Facebook use to point out the importance of the user’s identity.
The ASG argued that Twitter had fallen back on Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Blocking Rules), 2009, (Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all complaints) but pointed out that tweets were being made referring to ‘Indian Occupied Kashmir’ and the supposed survival of slain LTTE leader Prabhakaran.
He further contended that the Twitter account holder is not carrying out business by writing out a twitter post nor canvassing for business, he is only expressing his view.
He lastly contended, “therefore, when the government seeks to block the account, the person who is actually aggrieved by blocking of the order is not carrying out business he is merely expressing himself. Therefore, to say that you are covered under Article 19(1)(a) or 19 (1)(g) will not be correct. On the contrary the intermediary should distance itself from the account holder, if there is an act of omission or commission. He does not hold a brief for the account holder.”
Concluding his arguments, the ASG said, it is very difficult for a government to monitor and do it, to the extent it does, it requires support.
