The Delhi High Court was informed by twitter that being an intermediary, it cannot decide whether any content on its platform is lawful or not unless it is put to “actual knowledge” after determination by courts or the appropriate government.
The twitter informed that “actual knowledge” is a term that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal which means a court order or notification by the Government agency.
It said “This includes orders under Section 69A of the IT Act. Content that is notified to the Answering Respondent (Twitter) by way of a court order or by notification by the appropriate agency is then taken down. The Answering Respondent being an intermediary cannot decide whether content on its platform is lawful or otherwise unless it is put to such “actual knowledge”.
The media site stated that content can removed from Twitter is if it is violative of the platform’s terms of service.
It added that “…there is also a user agreement between the answering Respondent and its users. The Answering Respondent by way of its Terms of Service prescribes that certain content that may be prohibited on its service, and that a user who has violated these Terms may be suspended or the content may be removed.”
This contractual right remains unfettered by the enactment of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [IT Rules 2021], Twitter’s reply added.
Another point that was brought forth is that the Delhi High Court was already considering whether or not a writ petition is maintainable against Twitter.
Responding to twitter ,Advocate Aditya Deshwal highlighted that several objectionable posts have been moved under a handle named Atheist Republic, and that despite several complaints, Twitter has never initiated any complaint , nor have or neither suspended the account nor taken down the offending content.
In March, the High Court had expressed its displeasure against twitter for not taking action and suspending accounts of people who write ‘blasphemous’ and objectionable content about Hindu gods and goddesses, when even the account of former United States President Donald Trump was suspended.
The twitter in its reply said that it is not a ‘State’ as defined under Article 12 of the Indian constitution.
It argued that it is a private intermediary and its services can be availed only upon the acceptance of its Terms of Service, subject to applicable law.
The petition was heard by a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.
Twitter was represented by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra who stated that almost all the prayers in the petition have been met.
He informed the court that an FIR has already been registered against the offenders and that their content is taken off.
The Court listed the case for further consideration on October 28.