Twitter Account Blocking | Party Aggrieved By Review Committee Decision May Approach Court But Can't Seek Access To Internal Docs: Centre To Karnataka HC

The Union of India has said that X Corp (formerly Twitter) does not have locus standi to seek access to orders passed by the Review Committee (contemplated under Blocking Rules of 2009), confirming orders of the Designated Officer, directing X to block certain accounts for posting objectionable content.

The Centre went on to say that any party aggrieved by the decision of Review Committee can only seek a judicial review and has no right to insist on access to Review Committee documents.

"The review as contemplated under Rule 14 is an internal and Independent safeguard mechanism...The Review Committee is required to review and record its findings on whether the directions are in accordance with Sec.69-A of the IT Act. No parties are required to be heard by the Review Committee. A party aggrieved by the blocking orders has the option of seeking judicial review, and has no right to insist on access to the proceedings of the Review Committee. The appellant, being an intermediary, certainly has no locus standi to seek access to the proceedings of the Review Committee," it said.

X Corp claims that though emergency blocking orders were passed against it, the Review Committee later reversed the orders in at least 10 cases and asked X Corp to unblock those accounts. Its counsel claimed that 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.

Centre said that review of the blocking action (taken under Sec. 69-A of the Information Technology Act) is a safeguard against arbitrary usage of the power. However, it contended that such safeguards are meant for protecting those who are affected by use of power. It pointed that in its writ petition, X Corp had claimed that it is an intermediary as defined under the IT Act. It was the company's specific contention that it is eligible for exemption from certain liabilities under Sec.79 of the IT Act, by virtue of being an intermediary.

"As such, the clear position of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that it does not own any of the accounts created or tweets posted on its platform...Such safeguards can be invoked only by the creators/authors of the accounts/tweets. The appellant has no right to invoke such safeguards,” Centre said.

It further submitted that in its quest to challenge the impugned blocking order, X Corp has to first cross the hurdle of satisfying the Court on how it is aggrieved by the blocking of third party-objectionable contents, when it is not either the creator or author of it.

The statement of objection filed by Centre further states that when they had handed over the entire file containing the objectionable contents and the blocking orders in a sealed envelope before the Single judge bench which dismissed the petition and the Constitutional Court has reviewed the blocking orders and expressed satisfaction on its correctness, “The demand for a review by the Review Committee or to have access to the documents relating to the review by the Review Committee, would pale into insignificance.”

Centre further said that X Corp has neither sought for stay of the single judge's decision upholding the blocking orders, nor has the judgement been stayed. Resultantly, the Impugned judgement is in force and fully binds the company. "When there is a judgement that fully binds the appellant, it cannot seek Indirectly challenge it by demanding access to Review Committee documents."

It is also claimed that in the writ petition, X Corp had challenged the blocking of 39 URLs. However, by way of the impugned application, it has attempted to expand the scope of the writ petition by seeking interim relief in respect of 1096 blocking directions.

The matter is now adjourned by two weeks.

Case Title: X CORP And Union of India & Others

Case No: WA 895/2023