The Delhi High Court on 28th March2023, questioned social media platform Twitter upon not taking any action against those accounts which post blasphemous and objectionable content about Hindu gods and goddesses. High Court while comprehending the present scenario highlighted that even the account of former United States President Donald Trump was suspended.
A Division Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla said It appears as if the micro-blogging platform resorted to harsh steps only if it (Twitter) felt sensitive about a post or information and would not take any action if people of other regions and ethnicities felt offended by some content.
It is ultimately boiling down to this; if you feel sensitive you will block and you do not feel sensitive about the other ethnicities or people of other regions. If the same kind of thing was done against other religions you would have been more serious, ACJ Sanghi said.
The Court, therefore, directed Twitter to file responses explaining its policies and protocols for permanently blocking an account of a user. The Central government was also directed to file a counter affidavit and place on record the standard operating procedure (SOP) relating to blocking access to an account or information.
The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by advocate Aditya Deshwal arguing that several objectionable posts were being made through a Twitter handle named Atheist Republic and Inspite of several complaints being made on the said behalf, Twitter has neither suspended the account nor taken down the offending content.
On repeated occasions last year, Twitter was given directions by the High Court to strike down its content. A total of four posts were asked to be removed. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for Twitter, informed that pursuant to the Courts previous orders, the objectionable material has been taken down and police in some states have also registered FIRs in the matter.
Luthra submitted that permanent blocking of an account can be done only following a court order to the same effect as per the Supreme Courts judgment in Shreya Singhal case.
I am not for a moment defending the act. It has nothing to do with twitter. They have posted a link through their handle. The underlying material is not on twitter the only thing that was on twitter was the link to the website. We have removed that as well The mandate in the Shreya Singhal judgment is that I have to comply with lawful orders which I am happy to do. If they (petitioner) want to revisit the judgment they should lay a challenge to that, Luthra submitted.
However, Deshwal said that the new Information Technology Rules, 2021 put an onus on the social media intermediaries like Twitter and Facebook to curate and remove content that the same can be procceded with, only upon the direction of the Court is completely against the rule.
The submission that social media intermediaries can act only after a court order is completely wrong. The new IT Rules give a free hand to social media intermediaries to regulate their content. As far as my case is concerned this Atheist Republic is a habitual offender. Armin Navabi is the founder of this account and he is mocking even the proceedings. They are circulating blasphemous content. They may be atheists but they cannot ridicule other religions, he said.
Advocate Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, appearing for the Central government, told the court that there is an SOP between Centre and Twitter for blocking of accounts.
Counsel Vrinda Bhandari appearing on behalf of the Atheist Republic, said We are not contesting the tweets which have been taken down but blocking accounts is a very strong action. We should be heard before that. Please see the blocking rules. It says the party whose content is to be taken down should be heard as well. I am only saying blocking should not be ordered. I am willing to comply with the order, she submitted.
The Court has arraigned Atheist Republic as respondent in the case and issued notice to it. The Bench also recorded her undertaking that all offending material has already been removed or directed to be removed from its account.
The matter has been listed for its next hearing on September 62022.
