The HC was
hearing a plea against 10 blocking orders for 39 URLS issued by the central government between February 2021 and February 2022.
“There can’t be a general blocking order unless the nature of the content is in violation of grounds under 69A. Unless these six grounds are there, you cannot make a blocking order,” senior advocates Arvind Datar and Ashok Haranahalli, who appeared for Twitter, told Justice Krishna S. Dixit.
Datar also said that such blocking orders not only affect the rights of the primary user but also the intermediary and, hence, intermediaries were entitled to challenge the authority’s blocking orders.
“If it is my platform and the user is blocked then I am entitled to come and say that it is not violating Section 69A… My very platform is to enable you to post content and have conversations. Here, (the) case is worse as I am not allowed to communicate the blocking order to the user,” Datar said.
The Centre argued that Twitter, being a foreign platform, cannot seek freedom of speech and other fundamental rights available to Indian citizens for users of the platform.
Discover the stories of your interest
It also submitted that the directions to block certain Twitter accounts were issued in national and public interest and to prevent incidents of lynching and mob violence.
In the previous hearing, Justice Dixit had sought a comparative analysis from the petitioners of how other jurisdictions across the world had dealt with similar issues.
On Monday, Datar presented a study of four jurisdictions: the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Australia.
Justice Dixit was also told that all jurisdictions recognised social media intermediaries as aggrieved persons in cases where blocking orders were issued.
In this context, Haranahalli said the practice of not issuing notice to the users also affected the rights of the intermediary.
“Question of confidentiality does not arise between authority and intermediary,” he said.
The IT ministry’s blocking order was issued under Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules 2009, which requires strict confidentiality regarding all blocking requests.
However, Twitter contended that the confidentiality clause in the Centre’s rules for blocking Twitter accounts and tweets — which does not provide users with a reason when their accounts are blocked —
is “unreasonable” and denied those challenging the blocking orders with a fair opportunity.
Haranahalli told the court that Section 69A requires the reasons to be recorded in writing, meaning “the reasons must be communicated to the aggrieved”.
He added that blocking of information from public access without first issuing notice to the users was a violation of freedom of speech.
As per Section 69A, the Centre can direct any intermediary to block certain information with reasons given in writing if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in 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 the above.
For all the latest Technology News Click Here
