X Corp Deposits ₹25 Lakh With Karnataka High Court Registry In Appeal Against Account Blocking On Its Microblogging Platform Twitter

X Corp (formerly Twitter) informed the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday that it has deposited Rs 25 lakhs with the Registry, in pursuance of its appeal against blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

The amount is 50% of the cost imposed by a single bench of the High Court while dismissing its plea on June 30. The amount was due on August 14.

Arguing in appeal, the company 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.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal had on August 10 stayed the single bench order subject to X Corp depositing 50% of the amount with the court in a week's time.

“We direct the appellant to deposit Rs 25 lakh within one week in this court and list the appeal after 2 weeks. We make it clear that permission to deposit an amount may not be treated as acceptance by this court that equity lies in favour of the appellant. This is only on the statement made by the appellant that to show bonafides. As such, on deposit of Rs 25 lakh the order of the single judge bench is stayed until the next hearing date,” it had ordered.

Today, Justice Krishna S Dixit took note of the submission made by X Corp's counsel that the above direction has been complied with.

The company in its appeal says that if the single bench decision is upheld, the Union Government will be "emboldened" to issue more blocking orders that "violate Section 69A, 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, it is contended.

Case Title: X CORP. And Union of India

Case No: WP 13710/2022