'No Basic Affirmation Of Facts By UP Police' : Karnataka High Court On Notice To Twitter India MD In Ghaziabad FIR

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday posed several questions to the UP Police for insisting on appearance of Twitter India's Managing Director Manish Maheshwari for investigation in the FIR related to Ghaziabad video, without ascertaining the basic facts about his and Twitter India's culpability in the matter. Justice G Narender noted that crux of the matter is that a doctored video was uploaded on Twitter platform, however, Twitter India may not be connected with the alleged incident. "Whether Twitter India is capable of controlling the content?" the Judge specifically asked. "What is the allegation against Twitter India? There must be substance to say that Twitter India is capable of removing it? How does the complainant connect Twitter India. Don't bring in IT Rules now. IT Rules will not come here," the Judge lashed out at UP Police's counsel asking him not to mix up Twitter India and Twitter INC. He continued, "Have you even been able to make a prima facie determination that Twitter India is responsible or is even in control to stop this ac?t. Have you done this? Whether Twitter India claims to be an intermediary? Even this basic affirmation of fact is not done." Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for the Twitter MD, informed the Bench that the social media giant's Indian counterpart does not come under Section 79 (Intermediaries) of the IT Act. "Then where are you heading?" the Judge asked the UP Police. The Bench proceeded to observed that the UP Police has not even shown if Twitter was in a position to prevent the alleged incident. It orally remarked, "Is there anything to show there is some omission by Twitter. If there is an allegation under Section 376, potency is relevant. You are investigating against the company. To investigate you are required to identify the individual. But if the entity is not able to commit such action then where is the point. This petition is nothing unless you can show he could have prevent it." During the course of hearing, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for the Twitter MD, had argued that Maheshwari is merely an employee of the company and he had no control over the video of the Ghaziabad incident being shared in Twitter by certain journalists and politicians. UP Police on the other hand claimed the 41A notice was issued to the Petitioner only in a representative capacity and their aim is to merely identify Twitter India head, for which they seek the Petitioner's cooperation. "You (UP Police) issued notice under sec 160 CrPC he has responded saying he has no control over the content and pleaded inability. Have you even ascertained whether Twitter India is capable of controlling the content", the Court observed. The Bench was also addressed on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, inasmuch as the alleged incident is said to have taken place in Uttar Pradesh. The Court will continue the hearing tomorrow. It is hearing a writ petition filed by Maheshwari challenging the notice issued to him by the UP Police under Section 41A CrPC asking him to appear for investigation in relation to the FIR over circulation of Ghaziabad assault video. Courtroom Exchange Manish Maheshwari claims to not be a representative of Twitter Nagesh argued that Manish Maheshwari 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. "If the UP Police would have had patience and verified from ROC, I am only an employee of the company and the directors of the company are different," Nagesh submitted. Responding to this, the UP Police submitted that notice was issued to the Petitioner as he is named head of Twitter India. However, the agency it is not after the Petitioner particularly. "The notice was issued in representative capacity. We are not witch-hunting anybody. We only want the Petitioner to disclose who is the person in-charge of the company in India. Foreign company having millions of followers cannot be without a head," it submitted. To this, Nagesh responded, "Respondent has named me as representative of Accused 9. The police cannot nominate me as representative of the company it is for my company to do so. Under 305 (2) of CrPC policemen cannot nominate a person who is to represent the company." All we want is cooperation from the company: UP Police The UP Police submitted, "The whole FIR is regarding non-compliance of IT rules by Twitter in India…All we want is cooperation from the company. The company has some responsibility towards the country." Also Read: 'Respond On Compliance With IT Rules Or You're In Trouble': Delhi High Court Warns Twitter "I have always said I am willing...

'No Basic Affirmation Of Facts By UP Police' : Karnataka High Court On Notice To Twitter India MD In Ghaziabad FIR

Mustafa Plumber

Tags