Microblogging platform Twitter on Monday argued before the High Court of Karnataka that the reasons recorded by the authorities to block tweets or accounts has to be communicated to the persons and organisations against whom blocking orders are issued.
The Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which stipulates maintaining the confidentiality of requests to block contents, the complaints and the actions taken, is applicable to all except those against whom the blocking orders are issued, Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli said on behalf of Twitter.
Laws abroad
Earlier, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who also represented Twitter, submitted the details of laws existing in the U.S., U.K., European Union, and Australia on controlling online contents.
Mr. Datar pointed out that the law in the U.S. does not interfere with the content as its Constitution guarantees absolute freedom and the online contents become illegal only when they violate any other laws.
He also pointed out that Australia’s Online Safety Act, 2021 is a bit complicated and it authorises eSafety Commissioner appointed under this law to ensure blocking of only materials that promote, incite or depict abhorrent violent conduct, and such orders are appealable before a tribunal. In India, Mr. Datar said there is no such provision for appeal but one has to knock the doors of the High Courts.
To a query by Justice Krishna S. Dixit, who is hearing Twitter’s petition against several blocking orders, Mr. Datar said that Information Technology Act, 2000, under which the blocking rules have been framed, has reference to a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which in 1997 had adopted a model law on electronic commerce.
Hegde’s plea rejected
Meanwhile, Justice Dixit on Monday rejected an application filed by Sanjay Hegde, a senior advocate, seeking court’s permission to be part of Twitter’s petition.
It was pointed out to the court on behalf of Mr. Hegde that he had filed a petition against Twitter in Delhi High Court for suspending his Twitter account, and Twitter had taken a contention contrary to its claim in its petition before the High Court of Karnataka. Also, both the Twitter and Central government have referred to their affidavits filed in his petition in Delhi High Court in the present proceedings.
However, Justice Dixit rejected the application stating that Mr. Hegde is not an appropriate party to Twitter’s petition against the Central government.