SC seeks Facebook India chief’s response on Delhi assembly panel’s plea

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of Facebook India chief Ajit Mohan on an application moved by Delhi assembly’s peace and harmony committee, through its chairman Raghav Chadha, seeking to be made a party to the proceedings of a case filed by Mohan before the apex court.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of Facebook India chief Ajit Mohan on an application moved by Delhi assembly’s peace and harmony committee, through its chairman Raghav Chadha, seeking to be made a party to the proceedings of a case filed by Mohan before the apex court.

Supreme Court (File photo)

On September 23, Mohan had filed a plea challenging the September 10 and September 18 notices issued by the committee seeking his presence before the panel, which is probing the Delhi riots and the role of the social media company in alleged hate speech.

A three-judge bench headed by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked Mohan’s lawyer senior advocate Harish Salve to file a response within three weeks and posted the matter for further hearing to the third week of January.

The apex court, in September, had ordered that no coercive action should be taken against Mohan in connection with the summons issued by the committee. Subsequently, the panel decided not to hold any meeting till the issue was resolved by the top court.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the committee, told the court that it was a necessary party to the proceedings as it had issued the summons to Mohan.

“Since it is the action of the committee that is the subject matter of this writ petition, it is submitted that the applicant is a proper and necessary party to fully explain the circumstances under which the alleged cause of action took place and the impugned summons were issued,” the committee said.

The committee had received the mandate to suggest measures to eliminate factors and situations having a potential to disturb communal harmony in the capital and to establish harmony among different religious or linguistic groups.

Mohan had challenged before the top court the scope of such an inquiry and stated that “the very constitution of the committee of peace and harmony was unconstitutional”.

The committee countered this by saying, “Since consideration of the aforesaid issues (resulting from riots) arose within the geographical area of the (Delhi) assembly, it was necessary to examine them and seek inputs, help, advice and submissions which would enrich and fulfil the purposes for which the committee was constituted.”

Responding to the development, Salve said the committee’s application made for interesting reading. “The panel says it has an independent existence and is a juridical entity. It needs to be seen where it (panel) fits,” Salve said, while requesting time to file a response.