New Delhi:- Twitter filed a petition against the 10 blocking orders on the Karnataka High Court as issued by the court between February 2021 and 2022 challenging the tech giant to take down the 39 URLs quickly.
Judge Krishna S. Dixit also took to Twitter to impose a whopping 5 million rupee fine after saying that he did not give any reason for not complying with the central government's lockdown request in a timely manner. The court has ruled that Twitter is a multi-billion dollar company, not a farmer or law-abiding ordinary person.
Judge Dixit said today that he is confident in the central government's position that it not only has the power to block tweets but can also suspend accounts. The judge went on to say that the ruling addressed about eight issues, including whether users should be given a reason why their tweets are blocked, whether tweets should be blocked for a limited time, or whether they can be blocked indefinitely depending on the time of day.
Also Read:- Twitter Blue Subscribers Gain Expanded Tweeting Capabilities
Lead Attorneys Ashok Haranahalli, Arvind Datal, and Attorney Manu Kulkarni represented Twitter, while Additional Attorney General of India R. Sankaranarayanan represented the central government.
This cost he will pay to Karnataka Legal Affairs Department within 45 days. The court declared that Rs. 5,000 must be paid for each day the payment was delayed. The court reserved judgment on this issue on April 21 after hearing extensive arguments from both parties.
Twitter argued that the central government does not have the power to issue a general order to block social media accounts and that the order must include the reasons it should tell users. We also noted that a blocking order can only be issued if the nature of the content complies with the grounds set forth in Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Additionally, Twitter said that if no reason was given in such a lockdown order, the reason could be fabricated at a later date.
Also Read:- Twitter Faces $250 Million Lawsuit Over Alleged Copyright Infringement by Music Publishers
It also argues that the invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution (jurisdiction of the Supreme Court) is not limited to violations of constitutional rights and does not preclude speaking in court on Twitter. The social media giant claimed. Meanwhile, the central government claimed that Twitter was not authorized to file a petition because it could not speak on behalf of account holders.
Furthermore, since Twitter is a foreign company and the government's 10 lockdown orders were not arbitrary, the company is bound by Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression) of the Indian Constitution could not be exercised constitutionally. Discuss the issue.
In its Supreme Court complaint, Twitter argued that account-level bans were unfair and violated users' constitutional rights. Out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, Twitter challenged the blocking of only 39 URLs. The petition found that the order in question was clearly arbitrary and procedurally and substantively inconsistent with section 69A of the IT Act.
They also failed to comply with the procedures and safeguards required by the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking Public Access to Information) Regulations (Blocking Regulations), 2009. Twitter also argued that the entire account suspension order violated section 69A of the IT Act.
Also Read:- Facebook, Twitter Agree: Bias and Lies of 'Fact-Checkers
The Central Government submitted in reply to the directors to takedown that was issued in the national and public interest to prevent incidents like violence. The government emphasizes providing a safe and open. Lead Attorneys Ashok Haranahalli, Arvind Datal, and Attorney Manu Kulkarni represented Twitter, while Additional Attorney General of India R. Sankaranarayanan represented the central government.
Twitter has got up with some followings from the Karnataka Government and they send a report against them opposing the fine which is 50 lakhs.