On Wednesday, Twitter conveyed to the Karnataka High Court that its challenge against the takedown orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is valid. The social media giant maintained that the principle of reasonableness enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which pertains to Freedom of Speech, is applicable to its petition.
In the hearing before Justice Krishna S. Dixit, Advocate Manu Kulkarni, representing Twitter, highlighted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled in the ‘Shreya Singhal case’ that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act is in alignment with Article 19 of the Constitution.
Kulkarni argued, “I operate my office in Bengaluru and provide services in India, thus conducting business within the country.”
The High Court had, on Monday, requested both the Central government and Twitter to clarify how Indian entities would be treated in the United States and other foreign jurisdictions concerning such issues.
During Wednesday’s session, Twitter informed the court that under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, foreign nationals possess the constitutional right to access U.S. courts.
The court noted the absence of a similar provision within the Indian Constitution.
Kulkarni stated that Sections 83 to 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure bear resemblance to Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
Twitter’s legal representative pointed out that the government’s objections regarding takedowns appeared inconsistent and suggested the need for a clear framework of guidelines.
He further argued that Section 69A of the IT Act is being improperly applied to block accounts, which equates to stifling content that is yet to be published.
“The blocking should be focused on information that is already in existence, not on content that has not yet emerged. It is not the author whose voice should be suppressed, but rather the specific information,” he contended.
The court remarked that “law is not merely a matter of language; it encompasses something more significant. Characterizing every situation as dangerous without prior analysis could lead to costly consequences for the nation. If a person tweets multiple harmful messages, we may assume future content will follow suit, thus justifying account blocking.” The court emphasized that it is responsible for determining whether this interpretation aligns with the intent behind the drafting of Section 69A by Parliament.
The hearing has been postponed until April 17.
