The microblogging platform X (formerly Twitter) on Monday, January 29, questioned the Indian government’s decision not to disclose orders passed by a review committee upholding the blocking of several tweets on its platform before the Karnataka High Court.
In its appeal, X Corp challenged a single-judge order that had imposed ₹50 lakh costs on the platform while dismissing its challenge to certain orders by the Indian government between 2021 and 2022 to block several tweets, as reported by Bar and Bench.
Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, the counsel for X Corp, told the Court that the Indian government has now revealed that many of the blocking orders have been upheld by a review committee.
But the government has regarded the copy of the review committee orders as “top secret," refusing to provide a copy of it to the company, revealed Poovayaa. Poovayya argued that how can a review order be top secret when Rule 14 tells to record reasons? He further highlighted that the statute is terming it a record (reasons), and the Union is calling it ‘Top Secret’.
Underscoring the review committee’s decision, Poovayya said that the social media platform would not be able to properly challenge the blocking order if the orders were not disclosed.
In as many as 10 blocking demands, the review committee has ruled in favour of the micro-blogging site and ordered unblocking, revealed Poovayya.
“How do I run the business? My business is free speech... If the Union were to say that it will not place a review order (before the Court), I can (construe) it to mean that the review committee orders were in my favour, that review committee may have said, 'Why are there no reasons? Next time there should be reasons,'" Poovayya argued, as per Bar and Bench.
The senior counsel highlighted the main contentions of X Corp in its appeal. He contested whether reasons should be recorded before blocking content on the internet and whether reasons must be communicated to the intermediary so that the intermediary may challenge the blocking order if required.
Poovayya further argued that the government's orders to block content on X impinge on the microblogging site’s right to provide a platform for free speech.
The other contention of X Corp was whether a foreign company can adopt a right under Article 21, which consists of the right to life and personal liberty.
The central government’s counsel has asked for a week’s time to respond in the matter, including on the aspect of whether the review order can be produced, as per Bar and Bench.
The matter is expected to be heard next on February 12.
The Karnataka High Court's single judge dismissed the challenge and fined X Corp. ₹50 lakh for failing to promptly comply with blocking orders.
The microblogging site challenged the single-judge order.
A division bench of the High Court stayed the single-judge's judgment on August 10, provided X Corp deposits ₹25 lakh to show its bonafides.
