New Delhi: Twitter’s plea challenging action against multiple handles cannot be entertained, the central government told Karnataka HC on Thursday. Declaring Twitter’s content management policies as “failed”, the Center said the micro-blogging site is “not taking effective steps to prevent the spread of fake news or the spread of willful misinformation”.
Terming Twitter as a “habitually non-compliant” platform, the government reiterated that the Information Technology Act, 2000, is the law of the land, adding that “foreign platforms providing services in the country would not be entitled to claim that Indian law And the rules don’t apply to them.”
“It is not up to the arbitral forum to define what is and is not free speech,” the government told the court in response to one. petition Filed by Twitter opposing 10 orders passed by the Center last year.
In its petition, Twitter had termed these orders – aimed at blocking 39 handles – “arbitrary, excessive and disproportionate”, arguing that most of these orders were not supported for reasons.
Twitter had also argued that the orders do not comply with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which allows the Center to issue directions to block online access to any information.
According to the law, such measures are only “in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the defense of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or to prevent abetment to the commission of any cognizable offence. can be done.”
Challenging the claims made by the San Francisco-headquartered company, the central government said Twitter complied with the blocking orders “only after reminders and show-cause notices”.
The government also alleged that the delay was intentional on Twitter’s part, submitting that the company had “deliberately excessively delayed” (in some cases, more than a year) in complying with the instructions.
This, the Center said, was done “to ensure that the blocked directions lose theirs”. [sic] Price and content under section 69A become more viral and spread on other platforms also resulting in increased threat to sovereignty and integrity, issues of national security and public order ultimately posing risk to citizens and country . ,
Read also: Kasab, Covid orphan, Noida demolition – Gaurav Agarwal has been ‘friend’ of SC in various matters
‘Platforms being used by anti-India elements’
In a detailed statement of objections filed before the High Court, the central government acknowledged that Twitter was, indirectly, protecting the right of expression and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of its users in India. trying to. Constitution.
Twitter is a “foreign company, which is doing a commercial activity only for monetary gain”, the Center said, adding that the company has no right to allege violation of fundamental rights of its users.
Explaining the blocking orders, the government submitted: “In this digital age, platforms are misused by anti-India elements and foreign adversaries for anti-India propaganda at national and global level and create unrest and disorder in the country. .
“Deceptive content, fake news, hate speech material on religious or ethnic grounds, is widely spread and has the potential to multiply into newly revised content in various forms or on various other platforms.”
unverified, anonymous accounts
Twitter, in its plea, had also objected to the Center not issuing notices to the accounts it had sought to block.
However, the Center has now insisted that it is not bound to issue notices to them as far as anonymous accounts are concerned, and giving notice to Twitter in this regard would suffice under the existing laws.
The government also said that the accounts in question are unverified and have nothing to show that they are being operated by Indian citizens or are fake, anonymous or bots. There is no fundamental right of anonymity under the constitution, read the statement of objections
Further, the Center opposed Twitter’s contention that issuing notices to users for content related to issues relating to national security and public order is “not a prudent and sensible option”. Most such orders are issued for material related to issues of national security and public order, the government asserted.
“Examples of such content include anti-India, or seditious or any religious material that has the potential to incite violence, and material that affects communal harmony in the country such as content related to SFJ or Khalistan.
The government told the high court, “These content are posted by users who are either terrorists or sedition seekers or their sympathizers or foreign adversaries, with the intention of destabilizing India and its national security on communal lines.”
(Edited by Amritansh Arora)
Read also: ‘Conflict at a later stage, not unilateral power’ – Why SC-ruled arbitrators can’t interrogate fees