Non-Disclosure Of Reasons Behind Centre's Blocking Orders Infringe Users' Right To Appeal, Article 14: Twitter Argues Before Karnataka HC

Twitter India today told the Karnataka High Court that orders issued to it by the Central government for blocking certain user accounts directly affect those users' right to free speech and expression and thus, the orders must be communicated to them. When pointed by the Court that the governing statute (Information Technology Act) uses the expression "reasons to be recorded" and not "reasons to be recorded and communicated", Senior Advocate Ashok Haranhalli appearing for the platform submitted, "Even in absence of the word "communicated", the reasons so recorded should be communicated unless there is public interest." He further submitted that if reasons are not there in the womb of the order, there is possibility of it being manufactured. Thus, heavy onus lies on authorities to demonstrate justification for withholding reasons. "Order has to be reasoned order and it has to be communicated to persons affected so that it can be questioned... If not communicated then it infringes my right to appeal." The senior counsel reiterated that there could not be an omnibus general blocking order unless the content violates grounds mentioned in Section 69 (A) of the IT Act and added that any violation of the statutory provisions by the State directly infringes the affected party's right to equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution.Haranhalli concluded his arguments today. The bench will now hear ASG M B Nargund for the government on November 16.Courtroom ExchangeAt the outset, Haranhalli submitted that communicating reasons is advisable so that persons whose right is affected can raise an appeal.Here, Justice Krishna S. Dixit pointed that Parliament uses the phrase 'reasons to be recorded' in some statutes and there is a list of legislations where they say 'reasons to be recorded and communicated'."Therefore based upon that, subject to correction, once Parliament says 'reasons to be recorded', it meant reasons should NOT be communicated to the party," Justice Dixit remarked.However, Haranhalli responded that mere recording of reasons in the order will be of no help. "If the stand of Union of India is that this is the safeguard provided in legislation, so their stand is valid. But this stand of not informing reasons, it cannot be considered as a safeguard...Speaking order requires reasons to be recorded for the action...it is my submission, that in every case speaking order has to record reasons."He added, "The very object that reasons should be recorded independently means it needs to be communicated so that if it is required to be challenged before the court, it can be done."Haranhalli then referred to Section 69A of the IT Act which prescribes power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.. The grounds on which this power can be exercised by the government include (i) interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) defence of India, (iii) security of State, (iv) friendly relations with foreign States or (v) public order or (vi) for preventing incitement of cognizable offence relating to above.He argued that defence of the Government is not that because of overwhelming public interest reasons are not disclosed. "Account-level blocking amounts to blocking of future information...Merely because it is against our interest should we block a foreign handle? Authorities have to arrive at a satisfaction" he said.He further submitted that some tweets pertaining to the Farmers Protest may have been defamatory. However, the accounts cannot be blocked as a whole.At this juncture, the Bench orally remarked that maturity level of some sections of the society are not upto the mark and such people believe whatever comes their way. So far as compliance of Section 69A is concerned, it observed, "These are items where reasons are withheld. Therefore, building blocks of Sec 69A are marked by importance and seriousness. Certain things cannot be disclosed at all."Compiled by Akshita Saxena

Non-Disclosure Of Reasons Behind Centre's Blocking Orders Infringe Users' Right To Appeal, Article 14: Twitter Argues Before Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

Tags