Karnataka High Court says no guidelines are needed for the Centre to issue directions for blocking online content under Section 69 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000; the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology can block both tweets and entire accounts.
—
ON Friday, a single-judge Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit of the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by Twitter challenging ten blocking Orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
In the case of Twitter versus Union of India (2022), the court imposed an exemplary cost of ₹50 lakh on the significant social media intermediary for failure to comply with the Orders for taking down 39 ‘uniform resource locators’ (URLs) within the stipulated time despite being issued notices.
Also read: Twitter Withholds Prolific Accounts in an Oppressive Commentary on the Freedom of Speech in India
The court remarked that the United States-based social media company is not a “farmer” but a “billionaire company” and should have complied with the Orders knowing that could lead up to seven years of imprisonment and a fine.
Reportedly, MeitY issued Orders to Twitter to block 1,400 accounts and 175 tweets between 2021 and 2022. In June 2022, the ministry extended one “final” window to the company to comply with the blocking Orders or lose the safe harbour protection under Section 79 (exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) read with The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (as amended in 2022).
On July 5, 2022, Twitter filed a petition challenging the multiple blocking Orders for being manifestly arbitrary and “procedurally and substantively” deficient as per the requirement of Section 69A (power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource) and for being violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 19 (protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech and so on) of the Constitution of India.
In the petition, Twitter contended that the MeitY did not have the power to issue general Orders calling for blocking accounts. It was argued that blocking can only be confined to tweets and entire accounts cannot be blocked as such action does not fulfil the condition of proportionality laid down in Shreya Singhal versus Union of India (2015) and violates the fundamental right to speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Twitter stated that the blocking Orders must be reasoned and the same should be communicated to the concerned user. Blocking an account should also be time-limited.
Also read: Digital India Bill promises much, but concerns of executive overreach remain
Twitter also contended that a blocking Order could only be issued when the content invited any of the grounds laid down under Section 69A of the IT Act read with Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. As per Section 69A, failure to comply with the directions to restrict information can lead to imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and a fine.
The MeitY challenged the locus standi of the petition. According to the Union’s submissions, Twitter could not speak on behalf of the accounts that were ordered to be blocked.
The MeitY also argued that Twitter is a foreign entity and it cannot avail the remedy of fundamental rights. The blocking Orders were issued in national interest and Twitter had to comply with them in accordance with Section 79 of the IT Act, MeiTY contended.
Reliance was also placed on Anuradha Bhasin versus Union of India & Ors (2020) to state that content can be taken down or an account blocked if there is a negative effect on the integrity and sovereignty of India or on public order.
The high court found that Twitter has the locus standi to approach the court. Justice Dixit said that the MeitY not only has the power to block tweets but also accounts. Moreover, whether the blocking Orders should be time-specific or could be for an indefinite period, the court left to the MeitY.
Also read: Manipur deprived of internet for 50 days: Internet Freedom Foundation criticises templatised Orders
According to Internet Freedom Foundation, a New Delhi-based non-governmental organisation (NGO) that advocates for digital rights and liberties, the Karnataka High Court’s judgment is a reminder of the indiscriminate power to takedown content arrogated by the government, with wide-ranging implications on free speech.
The former chief executive officer of Twitter Jack Dorsey recently claimed that the Union government of India had threatened to shut down the social media network completely in the country. This was in response to the demands made by the government to suspend the accounts of journalists critical of the government during the time of farmers’ protests.
