Twitter moved the court after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued a notice on June 27, 2022 informing that it would initiate criminal action against the company for non-implementation of ‘blocking orders’
Twitter moved the court after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued a notice on June 27, 2022 informing that it would initiate criminal action against the company for non-implementation of ‘blocking orders’
The Karnataka High Court ordered the issuance of notice to the Central Government on a petition filed by microblogging platform Twitter challenging the legality of a series of ‘blocking orders’ issued by the authorities under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, or Blocked Twitter accounts or identified content of accounts.
On July 26, the petition came up for hearing before a bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit, who adjourned further hearing till August 25 while allowing Twitter to submit, in a sealed cover, copies of the ‘blocking orders’ ‘, which are treated as confidential documents according to the law.
The designated official of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had issued several ‘blocking orders’ since February 2021, asking Twitter to block tweets or accounts.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Twitter, has said that the blocking orders are against the right to freedom of expression and the entire business of the company will come to an end due to the nature of a blocking order.
Counsel for the Central Government said that the Advocate General of India, who will argue on behalf of the government, is infected with COVID-19 and he needs at least 15 days to recover from the infection.
Therefore, the court adjourned the session, accepting August 25 as the date of consideration of the request, at the request of Mr. Rohatgi.
Why Twitter has gone to court in India
The petition was filed after the Designated Officer of MeitY, following a series of meetings with Twitter’s Compliance Officer on issues raised over the propriety of certain ‘blocking orders’, issued a notice on June 27, 2022 informing that a criminal action. initiated against Twitter for non-compliance with ‘blocking orders’.
Twitter, which has complied with the protest ‘blocking orders’, has alleged in the petition that the ‘blocking orders’ are patently arbitrary, procedural and substantively inconsistent with Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. The ‘blocking orders’ are also in violation of the procedures and safeguards prescribed in the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by the Public) Rules, 2009, the petitioner claims.
You may want to readFair challenge: On Twitter, IT rules and freedom of speech
In 34 cases, the petition alleged, Twitter was told to block the entire account even though Section 69A only allows blocking of ‘information’.
Authorities have, since February 2021, told Twitter to block 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, the petition says, alleging the ‘blocking orders’ are illegal as authorities have not issued notices to account creators under Rule 8 .(1) of the 2009 rules and ‘blocking orders’ do not meet the ‘least intrusive test’ as recognized by the apex court.
“Some of the URLs (Uniform Resource Locator) contain political and journalistic content. Blocking such information is a serious violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed to the citizen-user of the Twitter platform”, the petition states, while emphasizing that no proper reason is assigned in the ‘blocking orders’.
“A review of the content available on the accounts of politicians, activists and journalists would show that the authorities have not shown how the content disturbs public order, as envisaged in Article 69A of the law,” the petition said.
What section 69A of the Information Technology Act says
Power to issue directions to block public access to any information through any computer resource –
(1) When the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the defense of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for the prevention of incitement to the commission of any offense cognizable in connection with the foregoing, may be subject to the provisions of sub-section
(2) For reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any government agency or intermediary to block from public access, or cause to be blocked from public access, any information created, transmitted, received, stored . or hosted on any computer resource. The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking of public access may be effected shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) The mediator who does not comply with the ordinance given by subsection (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of up to seven years, as well as shall be punished with a fine.
