Twitter Can Block Donald Trump's Account But Not User Posting Objectionable Content About Hindu Gods? Delhi High Court Asks

The Delhi High Court on Monday asked Twitter why it cannot block the account of a user, found to be repeatedly posting objectionable content about Hindu gods and goddesses, when in the same breath the micro-blogging website has suspended former US President Donald Trump's account.

As Twitter claimed that users post all kinds of content and it cannot block their accounts, a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla orally observed,

"If this is the logic then why have you blocked Mr. Trump? It is ultimately boiling down to this, people you feel sensitive about, you will block them. You are not bothered about the sentiments and religion of other people of the world. We dare say, if it were a thing done for any other religion, you would be much more sensitive."

The Court has now directed Twitter to file an affidavit, explaining its policy and the circumstance under which it resorts to such blocking of accounts.

It has also asked the Central government to file a counter affidavit and place on record the Standard Operating Procedure worked between Twitter and the IT Ministry, relating to blocking access to an account or information.

The development ensued in a criminal writ petition filed by Aditya Singh Deshwal, stating that the content uploaded on a Twitter account namely 'Atheist Republic' not only had abusive language with respect to Hindu goddesses, but also showed them in vulgar representations in the form of cartoons and graphics.

Vide order dated 29th October 2021, the Court had found prima facie substance in the complaint and had directed Twitter to take down the objectionable content. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a rejoinder, drawing the Court's attention to two more objectionable posts uploaded by Atheist Republic thereafter. This was removed by Twitter today morning.

When asked, why prompt and voluntary action was not taken by Twitter, especially in light of the fact that the posts in question were pointed out by the Petitioner as early as on 9 December, 2021, Twitter responded that in terms of the Shreya Singhal judgment, there has to be an order by the Court or a competent authority.

Visibly perturbed by the submission, Justice Sanghi remarked,

"So you will not use your own mind when there is something brazenly blasphemous or offending the sentiments of the people? Why should you not be covered by Section 79(2)(c) of the IT Act?"

As per the provision, an intermediary van be held liable for any third party information if it does not observe "due diligence" while discharging its duties.

Citing such repetitive violations, the Petitioner had sought for blocking the account of 'Atheist Republic'. He argued that the Shreya Singhal judgment has become obsolete in light of the IT Rules 2021. He relied on Rule 4(4) which obligates "significant social media intermediaries" like Twitter to deploy technology-based measures to "proactively identify" objectionable content.

The Petitioner further cited the last proviso to Rule 3(1)(d) which grants protection to intermediary even if it voluntarily removes access to objectionable information, data or link on a voluntary basis.

Taking note of the above provisions, the Court has sought an explanation from Twitter.

In its defence, Twitter stated that the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner would be to raise its grievance before the Central Government under Section 69A of the IT Act, which after taking into account factors like the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, may direct the company to block access to the account.

Thus, the Court has also directed the Central Government to examine if the user 'Atheist India' is repeatedly posting objectionable content and whether a case for blocking under of Section 69A is made out.

The Bench has also allowed impleadment of 'Atheist India' as a Respondent-party, subject to an undertaking that it shall not upload any offending material of the nature already directed to be removed by the Court, till the matter is decided.

Further, the party has been asked to file its counter affidavit, also indicating its status namely, its constitution, location, whether it is having any place of business in India and particulars of its authorized representative situated in India.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for Twitter, Standing counsel Harish Vaidyanathan appeared for Union of India, Advocate Vrinda Bhandari intervened on behalf of Atherst Republic.

The matter will now be heard on 6th September.

Case Title: Aditya Singh Deshwal v Union of India and Ors.