Twitter ‘complied under protest’ with MeitY’s blocking orders: Petition

Twitter argued that there was “non-application of mind” by MeitY when it came to judging the content the ministry wanted it to block.

Blocked content

Twitter argued that MeitY failed to test the content in the context of the class of readers for whom the tweets were primarily meant—users who wish to consume political or newsworthy content, are literate, and can perceive the context of the content.

In the past month, there has been an increase in the content taken down or suspended on Twitter, according to a Moneycontrol analysis. Such content included several accounts, including those of politicians, a tweet by journalist Rana Ayyub and tweets by politicians and so on.

This increase followed notices MeitY sent on June 4 and June 6 to the microblogging site claiming that it was being non-compliant with IT Rules 2021 by not following its orders to block some content.

The ministry sent another notice on June 27, giving the petitioners “one last opportunity” to comply with the directions it issued under Section 69A of the IT Act. This notice was a source of concern for Twitter.

Under Sec 69A of the IT Act, 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 sovereignty, security of the state and so on.

What happened in the meetings?

In meetings with the ministry held in response to the June 4 and 6 notices, Twitter argued that MeitY’s orders did not meet the requirements of Section 69A and requested it to reconsider and withdraw the remaining notices, according to the petition.

In response to the June 27 notice, which indicated that Twitter may lose its immunity under the IT Act, the messaging site reiterated that the blocking orders did not meet the threshold of the IT Act and urged MeitY again to reconsider its decision.

The ministry then withdrew 10 of the account suspension orders, but also sent Twitter a list of additional URLs to block and sought an immediate response. Twitter, in a letter, placed on record its compliance with the orders under protest.

The platform also requested the ministry to reconsider its ‘final notice’ dated June 27. The ministry reportedly responded that it was reviewing the request.

The 39 URLs

Twitter has submitted the details of the 39 URLs in a sealed cover to the court because Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, better known as Blocking Rules, require confidentiality to be maintained.

However, in the petition, Twitter said these URLs were accounts and indicated that several of the users were “identifiable public figures.” These users, to the “best of petitioner’s knowledge,” have not been provided any notice, or an opportunity for a hearing, the petition said.

In total, the government between Feb 2021-22, sent orders to block 1474 accounts, 175 tweets, the petition added.

Moneycontrol reached out to Twitter on the 39 URLs, and this report will be updated if and when a response is received.

Twitter’s arguments

No proper reasoning provided in blocking orders: In the petition, Twitter said MeitY’s blocking orders just mentioned that the content in question, be it a tweet or an account, was violative of Section 69A, without explaining how it amounted to a breach.

Violation of freedom of speech: The petition said several of the URLs contained “political and journalistic” content and that blocking of such information would be a violation of freedom of speech guaranteed to users of the platform.

Twitter, in the petition, also pointed out that in cases dealing with the fundamental rights of citizens, the Supreme Court had recognised that action by parties must be the “least intrusive.” Twitter argued that there was no justification provided how blocking accounts was “least intrusive” in this case.

Account-level blocking is disproportionate: In the petition, Twitter argued that Section 69A of the IT Act does not extend to blocking accounts. That is only meant to block information that is already available. The microblogging platform argued that the section does not extend to preventing information from being generated, received, stored and so on.

The platform argued that no time limit was specified in the blocking orders when it came to account-level suspension; there was no review mechanism and so it was disproportionate.

Content did not meet the threshold for blocking: Twitter said it believes that the content MeitY wanted blocked did not meet the requirements of Section 69 A.

It cited cases such as State of Maharashtra vs Sanghharaj Damodar Rupawate, in which it was laid down by the Supreme Court that the test of words in a material should be judged from the point of view of “strong minded” persons and not “weak” minds who “scent danger in every hostile point of view”.

It also cited the case of Anand Chintamani Dighe vs State of Maharashtra as a precedent for its argument. In the case it was laid down that popular perceptions cannot override the values of the Constitution.

Twitter requested the Karnataka High Court to quash several blocking orders dating back to 2021.

It also asked the high court to direct the government to revoke account suspensions and to identify specific tweets that violated Section 69 of the IT Act.