Karnataka HC: Petition by Twitter contesting centre’s blocking orders dismissed, Rs. 50 lakh fine imposed

On June 30, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition brought by Twitter Inc. contesting the various banning and take down orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY), stating that the company’s argument was “devoid of merits.” Additionally, the High Court imposed the company with a 50 lakh rupee fee. As per the order of the single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, who dictated the operative portion of the judgement while imposing a cost of Rs. 50 lakh on Twitter, it fine is to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within 45 days.

Reading the operative portion, the HC said, “In the above circumstances this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and accordingly it is. Petitioner is levied with an exemplary cost of ₹50 lakh payable to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru, within 45 days. If delay is brooked, it attracts an additional levy of ₹5,000 per day,” as reported by Livemint.

“I am convinced with contention of the Centre that they have powers to block tweets and block accounts,” the judge further said while dismissing Twitter’s petition.

“Your client (Twitter) was given notices and your client did not comply…Punishment for non-compliance is 7 years imprisonment and unlimited fine. That also did not deter your client. So you have not given any reason why you delayed compliance, more than a year of delay…then all of sudden you comply and approach the Court. You are not a farmer but a billion-dollar company,” the Bench further stated while pronouncing the verdict, as reported by Livelaw.

As further reported by LiveLaw, the Court had framed eight issues in the matter. First, on the issue of locus standi, which has been answered in Twitter’s favour. The second issue was whether there is nexus between blocking order and the reasons behind such order, which the Bench held to be in against Twitter. “On proportionality whether blocking should be tweet specific or period specific, I have held against you,” Justice Dixit had said.

The bench also refused to issue Guidelines to Centre, as sought by Advocate Manu Kulkarni for Twitter, for exercise of its powers under Section 69A.

Arguments made by Twitter:

Twitter contested the blocking of 39 URLs out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets. According to the platform, the directive to block all accounts violates Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Twitter has argued that the banning orders “demonstrate an excessive use of powers and are disproportionate” and are “procedurally and substantially deficient of the provision”.

As provided in the Bar and Bench report, the platform further argued that the Central government lacked the authority to issue general orders requesting the disabling of social media accounts and that such orders must include justifications that should be made known to users. Moreover, it also specified that only when the nature of the content complied with the requirements set forth in Section 69A of the IT Act could a blocking order be issued.

Arguments made by the Centre:

The central government disagreed with Twitter’s request to have the Indian government’s blocking orders overturned, claiming that the directives were made for “national and public interest” and to “prevent incidents of lynching and mob violence.”

Speaking on behalf of the Central government, Additional Solicitor General of India R Sankaranarayanan stated that the government is dedicated to “providing its citizens with an open, safe, trusted, and accountable internet and that its powers to block information have a limited scope,” as provided in the Bar and Bench report.

The judgment can be read as follows.

Download PDF

Background/Timeline of the case:

Last year, after the blocking orders had been issued, Twitter argued that in accordance with section 69A of the IT Act, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted, however the Ministry failed to provide these account holders any notices.
On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.
On June 9, 2022, the Twitter had responded by saying that the content for which it had ignored the blocking orders did not appear to be in breach of Section 69A.
On June 27, 2022 the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions.
On June 29, 2022, Twitter replied asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality.
On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on 10 account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked.
On July 1, 2022, 10 more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.
Justice Dixit had completed hearing the arguments and reserved the judgment on April 21, 2023. The operative portion of the judgment has now been pronounced in the court on June 30, 2023.