15.1 C
    Monday, February 26, 2024

      Twitter Tells Karnataka High Court Its Petition Against MeitY’s Content Takedown Orders Are Maintainable | Details Inside

      Twitter inform the High Court of Karnataka that its petition challenging the various takedown orders of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) was maintainable, as the concept of reasonableness in Article 19 of the Constitution of India pertaining to Freedom of Speech was applicable to it.

      Advocate Manu Kulkarni, appearing for Twitter, submit to the single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit that the Supreme Court in the ‘Shreya Singhal case‘ had interpreted that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act incorporated Article 19 of the Constitution.

      I have my office in Bengaluru and services are provide in India, so I am carrying on business in India,” Manu Kulkarni argue.

      High Court ask the Central government and Twitter to clarify the issue of how Indian entities would be treat in the US and foreign jurisdictions on such issues.

      Twitter inform the high court that under Article 3 of the Constitution of the US, foreign nationals had the Constitutional Right to access courts in the United States.

      The Court point out that a similar provision was absent in the Indian Constitution.

      Manu Kulkarni said Sections 83 to 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure were similar to Article 3 of the US Constitution.

      Twitter’s counsel said the statement of objections by the government was inconsistent in matters relate to takedowns, and a framework of guidelines may be need.

      Manu Kulkarni argue that Section 69A of the IT Act was being use to block accounts which amount to blocking content that had not even publish.

      ALSO READ  Simplilearn Launched Job Guarantee for Data Science Learners in India

      Manu Kulkarni argue :

      “The blocking should be of information that has already taken shape and not the one which is yet to come. The blocking is of the information and not the very author from whom the information is generated,”.

      The court observe :

      “Law is not just language, it is something more. It may amount to saying every dog will have one bite, before we term it a mad dog. But it will be very costly to the country. Suppose a person continuously tweets say 20 tweets, all venomous, then there is reason to assume that the 21st tweet will also be venomous. In such a way, we say it is better to block the account.”

      The court observe that it was for the court to judge whether this was the intent when Section 69A was draft by the Parliament.

      The hearing was adjourn to 17th April 2023.

      Related Articles


      Please enter your comment!
      Please enter your name here

      Stay Connected

      - Advertisement -

      Latest Articles