Unhappy Over Reports On Twitter Case Hearing, Karnataka High Court Cautions Media

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday expressed its unhappiness at the way in which media houses and platforms had reported yesterday's court hearing in the matter of Manish Maheshwari, an employee of Twitter Communication India Private Limited, who has challenged the Section 41A  CrPC notice issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police in the Ghaziabad FIR.

A single judge bench of Justice G S Narendar at the beginning of the hearing said "I want to make some observations about media or other platforms. Mr Nagesh (Appearing for petitioner), Mr Prasanna (Counsel for Uttar Pradesh Police), I want to express my unhappiness how the media reports have come out. This is a word of caution, any use of language which is not correct will not be taken lightly."

The Court on Tuesday had posed several queries to the UP Police for insisting on the appearance of Maheshwari for investigation in the FIR related to Ghaziabad video, without ascertaining even the basic facts about his and Twitter India's culpability in the matter.

Orally the court said queries were posed to the counsel and the court had not 'blasted' or 'lambasted' any advocates as has been made out in the media. The court said "This is not the conduct to be adopted. We raised queries, it was not a debate. I hope it will not be repeated. This kind of reporting or opinionated reporting is not permissible."

It added "This is not a boxing ring. This is a courtroom and court hall and be assured this is not a boxing ring or Akhada. No question of blasting or lambasting. This kind of reporting is not appreciative."

Further the court cautioned the media saying "This is a word of caution, any use of language which is not correct will not be taken lightly." It added "If you want to reproduce what happened in court, it should be fair and correct. I am putting people to notice."

Senior Advocate C V Nagesh appearing for the petitioner today continued making his submission. He contended that "Notice impugned under section 41A, by the officer not also refers to first notice (Issued on June 17) but also my response to it. This notice says we have received your email, it is clear from the email that you are avoiding cooperating in the investigation." This is a vindictive act, he argued.

He added that "This is a vindictive step taken by the jurisdictional officer under section 41A because I did not appear before him personally when notice (first notice) was issued under Sec 160 CrPC to me for recording my statement."

Later he relied on a number of judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court to support his case on maintainability of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Karnataka High Court.

On June 24 , the Court had passed an interim order restraining Uttar Pradesh police from taking coercive action against Manish Maheshwari pursuant to the notice issued to him under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Ghaziabad FIR. The Court had however permitted the police to record his statement through virtual mode.

Maheswari was asked by the UP Police to appear before Loni Border Police Station in relation to the investigation on the Ghaziabad video issue. However, he has claimed that he had no control over the video of the Ghaziabad incident being shared in Twitter by certain journalists and politicians.Further, he was in charge of the revenue division of Twitter Communications India Private Ltd (TCIPL) and was only "Managing Director" by designation. He does not control the content shared by Twitter users. It was contended that he was not a member of the Board of Directors of TCIPL and hence was not the "Managing Director" in the statutory sense.

The court will continue hearing the matter on July 8.