Will You Reconsider Blocking Orders Passed Against X Corp Users? Karnataka High Court To Central Govt

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday asked the Union Government to respond by September 27 whether it would re-consider the blocking orders passed by it directing X Corp (Formerly twitter) to block user accounts.

The bench comprising Justices G Narendar and Vijaykumar A Patil was hearing the company's appeal against the single judge’s dismissal of its challenge to the blocking orders.

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appearing for X Corp submitted though the company has blocked the accounts and will maintain status quo until further orders, he added the fact remains that the Centre's blocking orders are not reasoned. He thus urged that the orders be reviewed by the government. “There is no reason given...the order can be sent for review by the Secretary (Ministry of Electronics & IT)," he submitted.

Agreeing, the Bench orally remarked,

“We had the same thing in mind, we can send it to the Secretary. It will be an in-house decision, will not have any unwarranted publicity.”

Following which the court directed Centre to consider the request of the company.

“We will remand it back to the secretary and let him look into it and say whether it is justified or not...You (Centre) ask the secretary. Speak to ASG, (Additional Solicitor General), prima facie it appears they (X corp) have a case,” Court said and fixed the case for September 27 awaiting Centre's stand. It also allowed two applications filed by the company to amend the grounds and produce additional documents.

During the hearing, the Court also wondered if the single bench was justified in imposing Rs. 50 lakh costs on the company, in conspicuous absence of any provision in that regard. "How can the court (single bench) impose Rs 50 lakh cost when there is no provision for fine?" it orally remarked.

Arguing in appeal, the company has said that imposition of such exemplary costs is plainly unjust and excessive, and it effectively deters it as well as other intermediaries from challenging blocking orders that violate Section 69A or the Blocking Rules.

The company in its appeal has said that if the single bench decision is upheld, the Union Government will be "emboldened" to issue more blocking orders that violate Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Blocking Rules, and the procedures and safeguards mandated" by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case.

It is argued that the impugned order failed to follow the plain language of Section 69A(1) that reasons must be recorded in writing in a blocking order. It erroneously holds that Section 69A(1) does not require blocking orders to contain reasons in writing, the appeal says. Moreover, the impugned order's interpretation of Section 69A(1) leads to redundancy of words, which is impermissible in law.

Case Title: X CORP And Union of India & Others

Case No: WA 895/2023