The legal move follows the expiry of the July 4 deadline requiring the American microblogging platform to comply with directives issued by the ministry of electronics & information technology (MeitY).
The social intermediary approached the courts as it found several of the blocking orders issued by the information technology ministry “overboard and arbitrary, failed to provide notice to originators of the content” and were “disproportionate in several cases,” according to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
They declined to share the exact contents of the writ petition filed before the high court as the case is now sub-judice.
“Several blocking orders that were issued only ‘cite’ the grounds of Section 69A (of the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000) but fail to demonstrate how the content falls within those grounds, or how the said content is violative of Section 69A,” said one of the people cited above.
In an exclusive report on June 29, ET said the IT ministry had issued a notice to Twitter giving it a “last chance” to comply with all the notices and takedown orders issued under provisions of the IT Act or risk losing its intermediary status, and thereby, the protection accorded under Section 79 of the IT Act.
Discover the stories of your interest
MeitY and Twitter did not respond to queries seeking confirmation on the latest developments.
Meanwhile, people in the know said Twitter’s contention is that in several cases, content flagged for takedown by MeitY is posted by official handles of political parties. “Blocking of such information would be violative of the freedom of speech guaranteed to users of the platform,” said a source.
Further, the microblogging platform holds the view that in some of the blocking orders, the IT ministry has used its powers “disproportionately” and “has not specified the exact reasons as to why it believed the content to be violative of Section 69 of the IT Act,” said one person who declined to be identified.
Compliance Must
Meanwhile, in a post on the microblogging platform on Tuesday evening, minister of state for electronics and IT Rajeev Chandrasekhar wrote, “In India, all incldng foreign Internet intermediaries/platforms have right to court n judicial review. But equally ALL intermediary/platforms operating here, have unambiguous obligation to comply with our laws n rules.”
In its notice to Twitter that was sent on June 27, the IT ministry pointed out that despite the non-compliance notices delivered on June 6 and 9, the social media intermediary had not responded, and therefore, the ministry was taking action as prescribed under the relevant section of the IT Act of 2000.
Officials in the know had then told ET that the notices were being sent to Twitter after the intermediary’s “repeated failures to act on the content takedown notices sent under Section 69A of the IT Act” as well as on “non-compliance notices issued for not taking the content down.”
Legal experts are of the view that Section 69 of the IT Act has been used by the government “often in violation of the provisions of the section, which mention limited grounds for blocking access to any information.”
“Often, users whose content is taken down, are also not informed, and this essentially goes against the rationale of the apex court in upholding the section and the rules in Shreya Singhal versus Union of India,” said Prasanth Sugathan, legal director of the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in), while referring to a ruling by a two-judge bench in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India.
Big Tech’s Regulatory Run-Ins
The IT ministry’s warning on June 27 follows a series of run-ins that the US microblogging platform has had with Indian regulators in recent years.
In May 2021, when the IT Rules 2021 came into effect, MeitY issued a similar warning on the possibility of Twitter losing its intermediary status over non-compliance with regulations under the IT Act. It also directed the company to appoint a resident grievance officer, a resident chief compliance officer as well as a nodal contact person or risk losing the protection granted to it under Section 79 of the IT Act.
People aware of the thinking within the social media company pointed out that the IT ministry has itself said that “taking down users’ accounts should be the last resort and that platforms should take proportionate action of just removing the content or information alone only if the said content is illegal or unlawful.”
“Any account level blocking is a very disproportionate measure,” said one of the sources quoted above.
Tuesday’s legal challenge by Twitter will add to the list of petitions filed by social media intermediaries against one or more provisions of the Information Technology Rules of 2021 or the IT Act of 2000.
On May 25 last year, instant messaging platform WhatsApp approached the Delhi High Court challenging a provision under the IT rules — of tracing the originator of its messages. In the plea, WhatsApp said that since this would require it to break “end-to-end” encryption on its platform, it would end up infringing users’ fundamental right to privacy.
In a separate case last year, Twitter’s then India head Manish Maheshwari approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking to quash a summons issued to him by Uttar Pradesh police. The court had then ruled in Maheshwari’s favour and asked the police to question him virtually if needed.
