X’s flip-flop on account curbs raises questions about its appeal in Karnataka High Court

There has been some squirming in legal circles over a ruling by a sessions court in Bengaluru last week. Judge DP Kumaraswamy issued an interim order to X (formerly Twitter) asking the microblogging platform to suspend the account (TheLiverDoc) of a hepatologist, Cyriac Abby Philips, because of allegedly defamatory tweets against Himalaya Wellness, maker since 1955 of Liv52, a herbal supplement to treat liver disorders such as hepatitis and fatty liver. While the initial focus has been on the merits of the ruling per se, and the fact that it came ex parte, giving the defendant no chance to respond, the response of X has been more curious and might have set an unwelcome precedent. 

Let’s first consider X’s speedy response. The court passed the order on September 23, and X suspended the Kerala doctor’s account on September 28. In the past, it has rarely shown such alacrity in decision-making, and often deflected such issues to its US headquarters. In this case, X also did not, for example, block only the allegedly defamatory tweets, but suspended Philips’ ability to tweet and blocked all his tweets from being viewed in India. Yes, you read that right. X’s acts were precisely the issues over which it went to court in 2022, and again on appeal in August.

In the 2022 case, the company then known as Twitter asked the Karnataka High Court to quash multiple orders issued by the government of India, no less, asking some accounts to be blocked. It also pleaded that such blanket requests to block entire accounts, rather than tweets, should be deemed illegal.

After a single judge dismissed the plea and ordered it to pay a fine of Rs 50 lakh, X surprised most by challenging the ruling in August. In its appeal, X contended that the government could be even more “emboldened” by the ruling and seek ever more accounts to be blocked. It also pleaded that the issues at hand were significant, and deserved to be heard and ruled by a bigger bench of the Karnataka High Court.

X’s decision to appeal the Karnataka High Court ruling was a pleasant surprise to liberals because it suggested that Musk was not ready to capitulate to authorities in India, regardless of his desire to pursue several businesses — Tesla electric cars and Starlink satellite broadband — in India. Legal observers also welcomed the move because of the constitutional issues raised in the case, and the obvious need for it to be heard by a larger bench. 

In some ways, the appeal was still a big surprise. That is because Musk had months ago laid out what Twitter can and cannot do across the world. In an interview with the BBC, talking specifically about India, he said: “The organisation cannot override the law of the land. If employees have to choose between going to jail and obeying the law, they will obviously opt for the latter.” 

Change of Approach

Therefore, the decision in India now to blindly obey a court order on a civil case is weird, to say the least. Perhaps nothing from X should surprise us anymore, given Musk’s wholly arbitrary and ad hoc approach to running X, and a lack of clarity on larger issues, such as freedom of speech and misinformation. Still, X’s most recent response raises several troublesome questions.

Does it suggest that X has had a change of heart and does not really want to appeal the Karnataka High Court ruling, which, among other things, held that “the power to block under section 69A(1) of the [Information Technology] Act read with Website Blocking Rules is not tweet-specific but extends to user accounts in their entirety”? Or the part of the ruling that held that “notice to users of account in terms of Rule 8(1) of the Website Blocking Rules is not mandatory and that in any event, the absence of such notice does not avail to the intermediary as a ground for assailing the blocking orders”?

It would be curious to see if X goes through with the appeal, especially as India has further tightened its social media rules in recent weeks. If it does so, it would be interesting to see how the Karnataka High Court might respond to a company that has chosen to challenge the government of India’s authority to seek the blocking of some accounts, but readily accedes to a similar request from a lower court ruling, based on a mere complaint by a private entity.

Bala Murali Krishna works for a New York-based startup. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.