Dhruv Mehta: i issued a detailed clarification on June 5 and each point raised by them in minutes of meeting…

Mehta refers to email communication between telegram and centre

Dhruv Mehta: there was no issue of editing message raised. That was raised in interim direction. I filed my detailed response

Court: you can take it i have read all this. Otherwise we wont finish. Let us focus on the issue

Mehta on Secretary’s order: ‘public order’ prevents commission of offence…this is the application of mind?

Dhruv Mehta on Secretary’s response:

‘You cant recite words of the section. SC has criticised this approach..you have to look at the material and then say the satisfaction arrived at is on the basis of the material’

Sr Adv Dhruv Mehta refers to view of designated officer.

Petitioner’s side is not properly audible

Dhruv Mehta says that there was an emergency request by NTA

Court: there was request by NTA. Emergency or not will be decided by authority

Court: lets focus on power under 69A and whether they have exercised it properly…

Dhruv Mehta: they asked us to take down certain…

Court: that you have shown…you have to perform due diligence under S79 IT Act as you are an intermediary. 79 is an independent obligation, nothing to do with 69A IT act...

Court: I have gone through this. Let us focus on your argument. Regarding the power and nature of emergency. What it seems there were series of meetings and you have not been able to satisfy on efforts taken to meet with exigencies