If Media Can Report About Farmers' Protest, Why Ask Us To Block User Accounts? Twitter Opposes Centre's Blocking Orders In Karnataka HC

US-based microblogging platform Twitter on Monday opposed before the the Karnataka High Court the orders issued by the Central government, asking it to pull down content including several accounts that made posts relating to Farmers Protest and alleged mismanagement during COVID-19.

Twitter asked how it could be directed to block user accounts and muffle their freedom of speech, when news relating to these events were freely circulated by Television and print media.

"If on my platform 1200 accounts are blocked even when material is appearing in print and TV, then it is causing prejudice," Senior Advocate Arvind Datar submitted for the microblogging platform.

Twitter claims that if any particular account is against the interests of India, it is the first to act against it. However, when the government wishes to prevent certain accounts, it must follow statutory procedure.

Datar submitted that as per the jurisprudence laid down in the Shreya Singhal case, if Centre finds some tweet objectionable, it has to send a notice to the account holder asking why the tweet should not be pulled down. He argued that blocking user-accounts would be a violation of freedom of speech. Further, blocking orders demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate. "At the heart of Article 19 is the right to criticise... because we are a democracy."

At this juncture, the High Court inquired if the right of free speech and expression also applies to a artificial persons like Twitter.

Datar responded that the procedure laid down under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act has to be followed.

Section 69 gives the Central and State government the power to issue directions for the interception, monitoring, or decryption of any information through any computer resource. He submitted that this Section does not allow for 'wholesale' blocking of accounts.

Significantly, Centre has filed its reply in the matter, stating that it is not for an intermediary platform like Twitter to decide on what free speech is permitted and which is in contravention with national security and/or public order.

Datar argued that an objectionable account should be stopped only when it is a chronic/ repeat offender else, it will go against the principle of proportionality, affecting the social networking platform's business.

On Non-Compliance With Blocking Rules

Datar argued that the blocking orders issued by the Central Government are not compliant with Rule 6 of the IT (Blocking Rules) 2009, which prescribes identifying the person giving the message and the intermediary. The procedure to be followed is that on receiving any information, the same must be communicated to Twitter before a decision to block and must allow Twitter to submit clarification as per Rule 8. As per the rule, an equal opportunity should be given to the account holder.

On the contrary, the Central Government has straightforwardly issued directions to block 1,158 accounts, Datar said.

He referred to Shreya Singhal's case to argue that a blocking order could be validly passed after following the procedure, which requires notice to the social media platform and the account holder. It then has to be placed before a review committee, he added.

"If notice is not given to me as per procedure, itself ipso facto causes prejudice. If law says something is to be done in one way, then it has to be. If complying with principles of natural justice is empty formality then it need not be given," he added.

He submitted that any blocking order, without following the rules laid down, affects the intermediary platform, as they are engaged in giving and conveying the said information.

Datar also referred to Rule 16 of Blocking Rules which mentions that all information relating to the request and complaint received and the actions taken in each case shall be confidential. He said that 1,200 accounts were blocked without any information to the account holder, and Twitter is also prohibited from informing its users of the reason for such a hold-up.

Centre blocking "innocuous" accounts: Datar

Datar argued that several accounts that were sought to be blocked have made "innocuous" tweets and do not warrant interference in exercise of Centre's powers under Section 69A of IT Act.

As the High Court focused on number of such accounts, reportedly 2.66%, Datar argued that statistics could paint the wrong picture in a case for individual rights of the 1,200 blocked accounts.

He noted that blocking the entire account, more so in the absence of any time limit mentioned in the blocking orders, requires statutory safeguards. He referred to a matter against Twitter in the Delhi High Court, where the Ministry, one of the respondents, filed a sworn affidavit stating that the user accounts should be blocked only as a "last resort".

The matter is now listed for arguments on October 17.

Case No: WP 13710/2022

(Compiled by Shrutika Pandey)