Karnataka HC Admits X Corp's Appeal After Centre Refuses To Reconsider Account Blocking Orders, Will Decide If Intimation Of Reasons Mandatory

The Karnataka High Court today admitted the appeal preferred by X Corp (formerly Twitter) against the single judge’s dismissal of its challenge to the account blocking orders issued by the Union Government.

A division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil admitted the appeal after counsel for the Ministry of Electronics & IT informed the Court that there was no changed circumstances to reconsider the blocking orders.

On September 20, the Court had orally asked the Union Government to respond whether it would re-consider the blocking orders passed by it directing X Corp (Formerly twitter) to block user accounts.

During the hearing the bench indicated that it would consider the issue of whether reasons of the blocking orders passed by the Ministry are to be communicated to the platform, users of the accounts. It said that recording reasons is mandatory. However, the issue for consideration is whether such orders have to be communicated or not.

“So recognising that in Shreya Singhal, Supreme court has said it [blocking order] is open for challenge, when court has held it is open for challenge, how can ld single judge hold that it is not required to be communicated?” the bench wondered.

The single Judge had held that Twitter is not a "novice" who couldn't understand the objectionability of the tweets in question. It had held that if processual fairness in the governmental action is otherwise exhibited, the procedural infirmity of not communicating the reasons in a formal way, would not assume significance.

However, the Division bench today orally observed, "Let us assume the contents are of that nature, but a person can still challenge it...Once it is subject to judicial review, once his civil rights are impinged, communication of written order is required."

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 orders 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, the appeal says. 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.

The appeal will be heard on November 9.

Case Title: X CORP And Union of India & Others

Case No: WA 895/2023