Ghaziabad FIR : Karnataka High Court's Order In Twitter India Head's Challenge To UP Police Notice On July 13

The Karnataka High Court will on Tuesday (July 13) begin dictating its order in the petition filed by the Managing Director of Twitter Communications India Private Ltd(TCIPL), challenging the notice issued to him under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Ghaziabad FIR.

A single judge bench of Justice G Narendar said "We will dictate the order on Tuesday (July 13)." It directed the counsel for the petitioner to submit a synopsis of the submissions made by him in writing by Monday. The matter was closed after hearing both the parties over a period of four days.

The Twitter employee was asked by the UP Police to appear before the Loni Border Police Station in relation to the investigation on the Ghaziabad video issue. An Interim order passed on June 24, restrained the respondents from initiating any coercive action against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, if the police desires to examine the petitioner, they may do so in the virtual mode, the High Court had said.

Senior Advocate C V Nagesh appearing for the petitioner submitted that "Section 41A notice is a fallout to the Section 160 Crpc notice which lacks sanction of law. The contents of notice of section 41A would indicate that it is an act of intimidation/threat."

Further he submitted that "There are three classifications under section 41A and unless and until I fit into any one of them there is no jurisdiction to issue the notice to me. This is a vindictive action taken and my fundamental right is affected."

Nagesh also contended that "I (Manish) am always willing to cooperate with the investigation. I will go to him (police) or will be available through Video Conference. It has been almost 10 days since the interim order but they have not done anything. They have not moved their little finger at all." Moreover, all the information they need is easily available before the Registrar of Companies. He added "Twitter is not controlled or administered by me (petitioner). Company's name is Twitter Communications India Pvt Ltd. Who am I? An employee."

Finally he submitted that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and decided on the matter as the petitioner is a resident of Bengaluru and his office is in Bangalore.

On the other hand, the Advocate Prasanna Kumar appearing for the Uttar Pradesh police said "Offence has taken place in Uttar Pradesh. Uploading of video has resulted in violence, that is the offence. According to us, the petitioner has been claiming himself to be Managing Director of Twitter India. He cannot play hide and seek, let him come before us and answer. They have a responsibility to the people."

He added, "We (police) have given notice as he is the Managing Director, and the representative of MD let him come before us and answer." In its written submission it was contended that "The place of residence of the petitioner or the place where the petitioner carried on business may be a ground to institute a civil suit within the meaning of section 20 (a) of CPC. However, the place of residence or place where the petitioner carries on business have been excluded and does not find place in the Constitution of India. Thus Article 226 (2) is comparable only with section 20 © off CPC which deals with the cause of action wholly or in part.

Prasanna also contended that "All the three grounds that they claim that this court has territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter are not available to them as the offence has been committed in Uttar Pradesh."

Background

The FIR was registered over the tweets made by few journalists and politicians about the incident of an elderly Muslim man getting assaulted near Ghaziabad. It was alleged in the FIR that fake news was shared on Twitter that the attack was communal in nature.

The FIR was in the backdrop of an elderly Muslim man's claim in a video that his beard was cut off, and he was forced to chant "Vande Mataram" and "Jai Shri Ram". However, later on, the Uttar Pradesh Police ruled out any "communal angle" and said that Sufi Abdul Samad, the elderly man, was attacked by six men, as they were unhappy over the tabeez (amulets) he had sold them. It mentions offences punishable under Sections 153 (provoking to cause riots), 153A (promoting enmity between religious groups), 295A (insulting religious beliefs), 505 (statements inducing public mischief) & 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

Earlier, the High Court has allowed Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of fact-checking portal 'AltNews', to withdraw his transit anticipatory bail application after he appeared before the police and recorded his statement. Journalist Rana Ayyub, another accused named in the FIR, was granted 4-week transit anticipatory bail by the Bombay High Court on June 21.