Microblogging platform Twitter on Monday, September 26, opposed in the Karnataka High Court the Union government’s order to pull down content related to the farmers’ protests in 2021. Twitter told the Karnataka High Court that it was asked to completely block numerous accounts during the farmers' agitation on the borders of Delhi last year. It also told the bench headed by Justice Krishna S Dixit that the law in this regard only allows blocking of an individual tweet, not the whole account,regarding political criticism unless there is a repeated offence.
Senior counsel Arvind S Datar, appearing for Twitter in connection with 10 blocking orders by the Union government between February 2021 and February 2022, submitted that Section 69 of the Information Technology Act does not give scope for blanket blocking of accounts. He asked why, when the newspapers and television channels were covering the farmers' agitation, Twitter was asked to completely block accounts.
Noting that freedom of speech includes the right to criticise the government, he said, “The Supreme Court has held that criticism can be made within the boundaries of the law, and the order by the Union government is a violation of the Supreme Court order.” The advocate referred to the Shreya Singhal case, and contended that if a tweet is found to be objectionable, the government is mandated to send a notice to the account, asking why the post should not be pulled down.
Justice Dixit sought to know how such issues are dealt with in other jurisdictions such as American law, for which the counsel sought time. The hearing was adjourned to October 17. Twitter, in its petition before the High Court, maintained that blocking orders by the Union government violates the rights of users under the Constitution. The petition also describes the move of the government as arbitrary and in violation of Section 69 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Under Section 69 A of the IT Act, the Union government has the authority to prohibit internet content and apprehend the offender. This law addresses cybercrime and electronic trade. The Union government maintains that the blocking orders were issued in the national and public interest, and action was taken to prevent lynching and mob violence.
The Union government has filed its reply, saying that an intermediary platform like Twitter is not qualified to decide what speech goes against national security and what free speech can be permitted.