Twitter has no constitutional rights?

The ongoing legal battle between Twitter and the Indian government has reached a critical juncture with the Central Government telling the Karnataka High Court that Twitter, being a foreign reality, can not calculate on abecedarian rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution.

This statement came in response to Twitter challenging the ten blocking orders issued by the Central Government between February 2021 and February 2022. The Indian Government has contended that the ten blocking orders issued to Twitter between February 2021 and February 2022 were not arbitrary and were issued in accordance with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and the provisions outlined in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021.

The fresh Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan argued before Justice Krishna S Dixit that the Government would only intermediate in cases where there was a trouble to India’s sovereignty or public order. Twitter has challenged the blocking of only 39 URLs out of a aggregate of,474 accounts and 175 tweets. The company had argued before the High Court that blocking orders issued by the Central Government should contain reasons that are communicated to druggies of the social media platform.

The company contended that the Centre wasn’t empowered to issue general orders calling for the blocking of social media accounts. Twitter had also contended that account- position blocking was a disproportionate measure and violated the rights of druggies under the Constitution. Twitter had filed a solicitation in the High Court, claiming that the blocking orders were arbitrary and not in consonance with Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules.

still, the Central Government had submitted in response that the directions to block certain Twitter accounts were issued in the public and public interest and to help incidents of lynching and mob violence. The Government emphasized that its powers to block information had a limited compass and that it was committed to furnishing an open, safe, trusted, and responsible internet to its citizens. During the hail, ASG Sankaranarayanan had argued that inciting violence through tweets about the government of Pakistan or Indian- engaged Kashmir was dangerous and could lead to violence.

The ASG had also stressed that the Central Government would only intermediate in cases where there was a trouble to India’s sovereignty or public order. Twitter had preliminarily argued that it could speak on behalf of its account holders and, thus, had the locus standi to file a solicitation challenging the blocking orders. The company had contended that the orders in question were manifestly arbitrary and procedurally and substantively not in consonance with Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules.

In conclusion, the Central Government argued that Twitter, being a foreign reality, couldn’t calculate on abecedarian rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. The company will now place its response before the Court on April 10, and it remains to be seen how the High Court will rule on this matter. The legal battle between Twitter and the Indian Government highlights the ongoing debate over freedom of speech and expression in India and the part of social media platforms in upholding these abecedarian rights while also complying with original laws and regulations.

On April 10, the case will be heard again.
Case Title: TWITTER, INC v. UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WP 13710/2022

Appearance: .For the Respondents, ASG R.Sankaranarayanan a/w Kumar M N

Advocate Manu Kulkarni for Petitioner.

Bar Council of India Allows Foreign Lawyers Can Be Practice Foreign Law in India

FACEBOOK