"Total Non Compliance Of IT Rules": Delhi HC Takes Strong Objection Of Twitter's Affidavits; Grants One Last Opportunity

Taking strong objection of the Affidavits filed on behalf of Twitter stating that it has appointed Chief Compliance Officer and Grievance Officer as 'contingent workers', the Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted one last opportunity to it for filing a 'better affidavit' within a week setting out the details of the appointments and also as to why a Nodal Contact Person had not been appointed yet.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli was hearing a plea filed against the non-compliance by Twitter India and Twitter Inc with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021).

The Court observed that the Affidavits show a total non compliance with the IT Rules, 2021.

"I don't know what your company wants to do. If you want to do it, comply wholeheartedly." Justice Palli remarked orally.

During the course of hearing, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya apprised the Court that two affidavits have been filed by Twitter wherein it has been informed that the the appointments regarding Chief Compliance Officer and Grievance Officer have been made and that Twitter shall no more use the word 'interim'. 

Poovayya also informed the Court that with regards to the appointment of Nodal Contact Person who is supposed to bridge the gap between the entity and law enforcement officers, twitter has an oral confirmation from the said person however, assurance was given that a written response will be filed regarding the same.

Hearing this, the Court objected to the use of word 'contingent worker' in the said appointments and said:

"What is this term "Contingent worker"? What does this mean? This gives an impression that his duties are based on some contingencies."

Furthermore, it said:

"We don't know who third party contractor is. This is not done. Tell me. I don't understand, you are saying contingent, this is not compliance." 

At this juncture, ASG Chetan Sharma said "This repeated non compliance by nuance terminologies and seeking time, we hold our hands because we're before your lordship. Your lordship is correct, if they want to comply, comply wholeheartedly."

Poovayya however assured the Court that a clearly worded and a transparent affidvait will be filed by Twitter in the matter. Hearing this, the Court said:

"The officer himself says he is not an employee. It's a chief compliance officer, there has to be some seriousness about the post. This in itself is in the teeth of the rule. This is a 31 year old person. What is this?"

In view of this, the Court granted one weeks time as a final opportunity to Twitter for filing a better affidavit in terms of the earlier orders passed by the Court.

"The affidvait must clearly set out details of persons who have been appointed as Chief Compliance Officer and Redressal officer. The affidavit will also furnish reasons as to why nodal contact person is not appointed till date and in what time will he be appointed." The Court directed.

The matter was thereafter adjourned to August 6.

Earlier, Twitter had told the High Court that it will file its first Compliance Report consistent with the 2021 Rules no later than on 11th July 2021, which will be covering the period 26th May 2021 to 25th June 2021.

Twitter had further submitted that, while it is striving to comply with the 2021 Rules, it reserves its right to challenge the legality, validity, and vires of the Rules, and Twitter's submissions regarding compliance are filed without prejudice to its right to challenge the Rules.

The development came after the Court had earlier this month lashed out on Twitter saying that it was not going to give Twitter any protection from consequences of non-compliance, and granted Twitter time as sought for, to get back on the issue.

Twitter had in May this year told the court that they have already appointed a grievance redressal officer on May 28.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, (MeITY) Government of India informed the High Court that the Safe Harbour Immunity under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is no longer available to Twitter, as it hasn't "fully" complied with the IT Rules, 2021.

It was also said that in spite of 3 months' time granted to all SSMIs to comply with the IT Rules 2021, Twitter has failed to fully comply with the same, the non-compliance is leading to Twitter "losing its immunity conferred under S.79(1) of the IT Act, 2000.

The plea has been filed by one Amit Acharya, a practicing advocate in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India, and a user of the platform, stating that Twitter is a "Significant Social Media Intermediary" (SSMI) as laid down under the IT Rules, 2021 and therefore must ensure compliance with the statutory duties imposed upon it by the provisions of these rules.

The petition alleges that according to Rule 4(c) of the aforesaid IT Rules, every SSMI has to appoint a "Resident Grievance Officer", who shall, amongst others, be responsible for the redressal and disposal of complaints made by a user or "victim" on the platform.

The petitioner states that in non-compliance with the Rules, Twitter India and Twitter have failed to appoint any Resident Grievance Officer, Nodal Officer and Chief Compliance Officer.

It is thus stated that as "a subscriber and user of Twitter" while "scrolling his Twitter on May 26, 2021," he found allegedly "defamatory, false and untrue tweets" by two individuals.

As per the Rules, he tried to look for the Resident Grievance Officer to lodge a complaint with, however, he found no details of the Resident Grievance Officer on the page of Twitter, "which is a clear violation of Sub-Rule 2(a) of Rule 3 which says that the intermediary shall prominently publish on its website, mobile based application or both, as the case may be, the name of the Grievance Officer and his contact details."

Therefore, it is stated that Twitter and Twitter India "have deprived him of his statutory right to lodge complaint before the Resident Grievance Officer".

The petitioner thus prayed for the appointment of a Resident Grievance Officer and discharge of all other statutory and executive duties under the IT Rules by Twitter and Twitter India.

Title: Amit Acharya v. UOI & Ors.