Not just user, intermediary also affected by blocking orders, Twitter tells Karnataka HC

Representational image

When a blocking order is issued, it is not just the user whose content has been blocked is considered as an 'aggrieved person', but also the platform from which the content has been removed, Twitter told Karnataka High Court on October 17.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar appearing for Twitter said, "All countries recognise that the social media intermediary, they are all aggrieved persons -- it is not just the user who is posting the message, but even the intermediary that has the right to file an appeal."

These submissions come in response to the Karnataka High Court's questions on how Twitter is considered an aggrieved person. The case involves a petition that challenges 10 blocking orders consisting of 39 URLs belonging to users.

Expanding further on this, Datar reasoned that when the notice is issued, it is not just issued to the user but also to the intermediary.

"If it is my platform, and a user is prevented from using it, I am entitled to come and inquire why the person is being prevented from using the platform if the content is not in violation of Section 69A of the IT Act," Datar said.

He said that the 10 blocking orders do not meet the ambit of Section 69A of the IT Act.

"There cant be an omnibus, general blocking order unless the nature of the message and the nature of the contents are in violation of the grounds mentioned in Section 69A," he said.

He also urged the court to do away with the provision of not letting intermediaries communicate blocking orders to the persons concerned.

Datar also gave a low down to the Karnataka High Court on how blocking orders operate in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

While in the US, the government cannot direct anybody to remove any content, in Australia, a safety commissioner can issue takedown notices which can be appealed against.

Datar pointed out that blocking orders in most jurisdictions come with a time limit, unlike that of India.

Twitter has gone to court against the Indian government claiming that 39 URLs, specifically accounts that MeitY wanted it to block, did not meet the requirements of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

Under Section 69A, the Union government, represented by MeitY, or any other specially authorised official, can issue blocking orders to platforms like Twitter on grounds such as the interest of the sovereignty, security of the state, and so on.