Karnataka High Court Grants Last Opportunity To X Corp To Show Compliance Of Blocking Orders

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday granted one more and last opportunity to X Corp (formerly Twitter) to place on record material to show that it had complied with blocking orders issued to it by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

A Division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal said, “Appellant was called upon to show the material as to whether the appellant had committed a complete compliance of the order issued by authorities, time was sought for by the appellant. Today counsel for appellant prays for adjournment on the ground that he is awaiting instruction, accordingly one more and last opportunity is granted. Appeal is adjourned to September 15.”

During the hearing the bench orally observed, “Other side has argued that even in appeal or petition it is not stated that you have complied, but it is a vast compliance, so giving a scope whether there was really a compliance. They (respondents) say that there was no due compliance on your side, so if you're still not in a position to submit before the court, (whether you complied) then why should the appeal be allowed.”

Further it said, “Show with a table that I was asked to do something in response I have done these things. If still it is not available with you what inference can be drawn against you.” It added, “We will go to them (respondents) later, It is your duty to satisfy the court and stand on your own feet.”

Following which the counsel for X Corp sought an adjournment to secure instructions. Accordingly, the court adjourned the hearing, taking on record that the respondents would be filing the statement of objections and application to vacate the interim order passed on August 10, during the course of the day.

On August 10, the court stayed a Single bench order dismissing the plea moved by X Corp challenging the blocking orders to the extent it imposed Rs. 50 lakh cost on the company. The interim relief was made subject to X Corp depositing 50% of the amount with the court in a week's time.

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.

The appeal also questions the order inasmuch it permits blocking of accounts as a whole, including all future innocuous content posted by those accounts. It says, “The plain language of Section 69A(1) authorizes only the blocking of information that already exists, and therefore the Impugned Order should have applied a literal interpretation. It cannot justify adopting a purposive interpretation because the language of Section 69A(1) is unambiguous.”

Further it is said “The Impugned Order erroneously held that, although Appellant has locus-standi to bring a petition under Article 226, Appellant cannot claim the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India because it is not a natural person. This holding is wrong because it contradicts the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-J.) v. Union of India (2017).”

It is also said that the impugned order should be set aside because it ignored the respondent's failure to comply with Rule 14 of the Blocking Rules. The order failed to apply the doctrine of proportionality that is an inherent part of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which apply to Appellant, it is averred.

Further it says, “The Impugned Order misstates material facts because it returns an erroneous finding that Appellant's "representatives who admittedly participated in several meetings of the Committee, never indicated to the authorities the grievances that are being now aired". This finding is erroneous because Appellant raised all of the relevant issues with the Rule 7 Committee and Respondents numerous times.”

The matter will now be taken up on September 15.

Case Title: X Corp And Union of India

Case No: WA 895/2023

Appearance: Advocate Manu Kulkarni for Appellant.

ASG R. Sankaranarayanan a/w Advocate Kumar M N for Respondent.