Karnataka High Court Asks Centre If It Will Produce Review Committee's Order Confirming Account Blocking Orders Against X Corp

The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the Union of India to respond to an application filed by X Corp (formerly twitter) praying to place on record the orders passed by the Review Committee (contemplated under Blocking Rules of 2009), confirming the orders of the Designated Officer, directing X, to block certain accounts for posting objectionable content.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice PS Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda gave the direction after being informed by the Deputy Solicitor General that he will get instructions on whether to place the review committee orders or not.

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appearing for the US based microblogging platform detailed the safeguards against blocking as contained under the Blocking Rules of 2009 and argued that the reasons for passing such orders have to be made known to the affected party. He submitted that one-line "emergency" blocking orders were issued to the company in bulk which in turn has affected its business that is based on "free speech".

"In general blocking they cannot say that block 1178 account in 48 hrs...we believe in free speech and plurality," he submitted.

Poovayya explained that under the 2009 Rules, the Nodal officer appointed by a company forwards the complaint to the Designated officer (appointed under Rule 3). The Designated officer chairs a Committee which has to record reasons that blocking is required. The same is then forwarded to the Secretary of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and if the MeitY Secretary also agrees with the blocking then an order is communicated in writing by the Designated officer to the intermediary. Rule 14 contemplates a Review Committee which decides whether or not the blocking is in accordance with Section 69A of the IT Act.

So far as "emergency" blocking orders are concerned, Poovayya said Rule 9 stipulates that the Designated officer, on receiving the information from Nodal officer will directly approach the MeitY Secretary who will pass an interim order. This interim order is later reviewed by the Review Committee.

Poovayya claimed that though emergency blocking orders were passed against X Corp, the Review Committee later reversed the orders in at least 10 cases and asked X Corp to unblock those accounts. However, he claimed such orders have been withheld from the company and thus the reasons in its favour have not been made known. Similar is the case with the orders that have upheld account blocking.

"I am challenging the orders of the designated officer and in the appeal the respondents say it has been reviewed but they will not give it to me saying it is 'Top Secret'...I have reason to believe...if Union says that order will not be given to me then it is presumed that order may be benefitting me," he submitted.

It is at this juncture that the Court asked Union of India whether or not it is willing to produce the review order on record. The matter is now listed on February 12.

The High Court had in October 2023, admitted the appeal preferred by X Corp against the single judge's order. 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 order 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. Moreover, the impugned order's interpretation of Section 69A(1) leads to redundancy of words, which is impermissible in law.

The company also opposed imposition of such exemplary costs and obtained an interim order of stay on a deposit of Rs 25 lakhs with the Registry.

Case Title: X CORP And Union of India & Others

Case No: WA 895/2023