The social media giant X Corp. (formerly Twitter) has submitted its response to the writ petition filed by the founder of Hindutva Watch (HW), Raqib Hameed Naik, seeking to quash a Centre government’s order blocking the X account of Hindutva Watch in January, 2024, was unjustified and disproportionate and the impugned blocking not fall within the grounds specified under Section 69A of the IT Act.
While stating on record that the blocking order was unjust, X supported HW’s request that the social media account be unblocked, objecting the Centre govt order to blocking the account on multiple grounds. ‘X’ has also expressed willingness to restore Hindutva Watch’s account. X in its reply before the Delhi High Court stated that the impugned order of qualify the requirement of section 69A of the IT Act, 2002.
X also submitted before the court that the Central govt’s order also violates the Supreme Court’s decision in the Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, relating to restrictions on online speech, held as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Background
This year in January, 2024, the ‘X’ account of Hindutva Watch, a hate-crime tracker in India, was blocked by the social media giant ‘X’ after the Ministry of Electronics and Information technology (MeitY) issued a notice listing several accounts that the government intended to block as it had the “the potential to incite violence and disrupt public law.” This list also included the account of HW (@HindutvaWatchIn).
In compliance with the government’s direction, in January, 2024, ‘X’ withheld the account of Hindutva Watch, stating that the action was being taken in response to a legal demand.
Raqib Hameed Naik, Founder of Hindutva Watch filed a writ petition Raqib Hameed vs Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) 6023/2024] in the Delhi High Court in April, 2024 against the blocking of account @HindutvaWatchIn and challenged the MeitY blocking order.
According to Bar and Bench, X said that it objected to MeitY notice, claiming that @HindutvaWatchIn’ did not fall within the grounds specified under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and that the MeitY flagged the posts as inciteful without basis.
X said that despite their objection, the Ministry issued a blocking order directing ‘X’ to block HindutvaWatchIn. X reverted with an objection letter, stating that the blocking order was issued in violation of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution and Section 69A of the IT Act. In objection letter, ‘X’ mentioned that the blocking order would disproportionately affect the user’s rights. But the Ministry not responded on this.
Blocking order was “without basis” and “disproportionate”
The social media giant X has submitted in its reply that the Modi government’s blocking order against Hindutva Watch is without basis and disproportionate. X further added that the blocking of the Petitioner’s entire Account, as opposed to specific posts, was disproportionate and did not constitute the “least intrusive measure” as mandated under law.
X notes that the blocking order “disproportionately affect the user’s rights” because it prevents the user from using X in India at all and blocking HW’s entire account does not meet the four-part proportionality test.
X said ready to restore account but not ‘the State’ under Article 12
While objecting the Centre’s blocking proposal, X also asserted that Hameed’s petition was not maintainable against X, as the company is not “the State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, nor does it perform a public function. However, X Corp. also states that, without prejudice to those objections, it does not oppose Hameed’s request to restore the account and will comply with a court order to that effect.
“It is admitted that Respondent No. 1’s (Union of India) blocking of the Petitioner’s (Hindutva Watch founder) entire social media accounts on the basis of certain alleged offending posts is contrary to Section 69A of the IT Act, disproportionate, and exceeds the limits prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It is admitted that a possible and less rights-infringing approach would involve the removal of specific posts, if found to be in violation of the law … Without prejudice to the Preliminary Objections, Answering Respondent (X/ Twitter) does not oppose Petitioner’s request to restore Petitioner’s X Account in India, and will comply with such an Order if this Hon’ble Court grants it,” X stated before the court through its reply. Reported Bar and Bench
In support of its Position, X cites the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5880 in which the Court held that X Corp. does not perform a public function and is therefore not amenable to the Court’s writ jurisdiction.
Violates right to freedom of expression
The central government’s blocking of Hindutva Watch’s Twitter account constitutes a blatant violation of freedom of speech. By censoring the account, the government suppresses critical voices and stifles the documentation of hate crimes and hate speech by right-wing outfits and leaders. This arbitrary action undermines India’s democratic values and the fundamental right to expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The blocking order lacks transparency, proportionality, and judicial oversight, setting a chilling precedent for online speech, as no prior notice was served to the HW, before or after the action. It highlights the government’s growing tendency to silence dissenting voices, compromising the safety of minority populations and undermining accountability towards rising in motivated hate crimes and hate speeches.
What is Hindutva Watch?
As per its website, Hindutva Watch (HW) is a media and research initiative committed to documenting hate crimes and hate speech targeting India’s religious minorities and marginalized groups, including Dalits. The project has been described by the Washington Post as “one of the most robust real-time data sets of human rights abuses in the world’s largest democracy.” The LA Times has described HW as “a thorn in the side of Hindu nationalists who have been provoking anti-Muslim sentiment for years.”
However, the blocking of X accounts of those critical of the Modi government is not a new phenomenon. Many reports have highlighted the complicity that X has shown, or has been pressurised to show by the Indian government, in regards to mass censorship of its users. In October 2023, accounts of two U.S. based non-profits that frequently criticised Indian political leaders’ record on minority and caste rights issues in India, namely The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and Hindus for Human Rights (HFHR), had also been withheld owning to “legal demands”.
The next date of hearing in the matter is October 3, 2024
Related:
‘X’ account of HindtuvaWatch withheld in India owing to “legal demands”
The breakfast table at a well-to-do Hindu household
Hate Watch: Twitter suspends Kreately Media’s account after CJP complaints