'Delhi Can Ill-Afford Another Riots; Role Of Facebook Must Be Looked Into': Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Assembly Summons

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to quash the summons issued to Facebook India Managing Director Ajit Mohan by the Peace and Harmony committee of the Delhi Assembly Committee seeking his appearance in an enquiry related to Delhi Riots."The capital of the country can ill-afford any repetition of the occurrence and thus, the role of Facebook in this context must be looked into by the powers that be. It is in this background that the Assembly sought to constitute a peace and harmony committee – whether it has the legislative competence or not is an aspect we will deal with it under the relevant head. The Assembly being a local legislative and governance body, it cannot be said that their concerns were misconceived or illegitimate," the judgment stated.However, the Court held that the Delhi Assembly's enquiry cannot encroach into "prohibited domains" of law and order and criminal prosecution, as they are subjects under the domain of the Union Government. Therefore, the Court held that any representative of the petitioner can deny answering any question by the committee if it falls within the prohibited domains. The Court held that the challenge of Facebook Head was "premature" and "preemptive" as nothing much has happened really except being asked to appear. There is no precedent for interfering with an action of assembly at a threshold stage.The Court also held that legislative function is only one of the functions of the assembly. Investigation of complicated social problems are also under its domain. Ajit Mohan had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the summons issued by the Peace and Harmony committee of the Delhi Assembly, headed by Raghav Chadha MLA, to probe the role of fake social media posts in creating communal riots in North East Delhi in February 2020.The Court rejected the argument that the Delhi Assembly has no legislative competence to enquire into the matter of Delhi riots. The committee has right to seek information on any matter related to peace and harmony without encroaching in any subject of the Union under the 7th schedule. Because of the nature of the riots, the Delhi Assembly, without transgressing into any field of the Union under 7 Schedule can look into the issue. Larger concepts of "peace and harmony" go beyond the concept of "law and order".However, the bench took exception to certain statements made by the Committee in its press conference against Facebook. It underscored that the Committee has no power to prosecute. The committee cannot don the role of a prosecuting agency and direct filing of supplementary chargesheet. Assembly does not have power on law & order or social media intermediaries. Therefore, the Court held that any representative of the petitioner can deny answering any question by the committee if its falls within the prohibited domains. "The statements made in the press conference cannot be brushed aside... these statements should not have been made and can give rise to apprehension in mind of petitioner. The statements made in the press conference by respondents were hardly conducive to the proceedings before the committee", the Court observed. A Bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy delivered the verdict.The judgment authored by Justice Kaul stated that the Court has not dealt with the issue of codification of legislative privileges."Regarding codification of privileges, it is a serious issue, we did not exercise powers under 142 as we were asked to", the judgment said.The Supreme Court observed that Facebook's role is not so "innocuous" and is more "active" while dealing with third party information.A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, referring to enquiries launched against the social media giant in many countries, observed :"It is too late in the day for companies like Facebook to deny that they use algorithms (which are sequences of instructions) with some human intervention to personalise content and news to target users. The algorithms select the content based on several factors including social connections, location, and past online activity of the user".The Court noted that such algorithms are often "far from objective with biases capable of getting replicated and reinforced". Serious questions have been raised about whether there is a faulty architecture of such intermediary platforms and whether the kind of free,liberal debate which they sought to encourage has itself become a casualty, defeating the very objective of providing that platform."The role played by Facebook is, thus, more active and not as innocuous as is often presented when dealing with third party content", the Court saidReferences made to Facebook's role in Myanmar genocide, Sri Lankan violenceThe judgment authored ...

'Delhi Can Ill-Afford Another Riots; Role Of Facebook Must Be Looked Into': Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Assembly Summons

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags