E-Paper
Don’t need to send notice before action against account: Meta to Delhi HC
Meta told the Delhi high court that the IT Rules only require it to give a user opportunity to dispute the action taken by an intermediary and request for reinstatement of access
NEW DELHI: Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has informed the Delhi high court that law does not require it to send a prior notice to an individual before suspending or taking action against their account.
Replying to a plea by Wokeflix against the suspension of its Instagram account, Meta, which owns Instagram, told justice Yashwant Varma in an affidavit that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, requires intermediaries to provide an opportunity to individuals to appeal against the suspension of their accounts only after the action has been taken.
It said that Rule 4(8) of IT Rules requires intermediaries to provide an “opportunity to dispute the action being taken by such intermediary and request for the reinstatement of access to such information”.
“To the extent that petitioner claims that they should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before action is taken on their account, that request is without merit. Under the law, petitioner simply is not entitled to such an opportunity and, tellingly, petitioner cites no authority for such an entitlement,” Meta said in its affidavit against the petition filed by a user, Wokeflix.
In its affidavit, Meta, however, insisted that the petitioner’s prayer that they should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before action is taken is contrary to law, which only requires intermediaries to provide an opportunity to appeal after the action has been taken.
Meta filed the affidavit on April 27. The high court will hear the case on May 17.
However, while responding to this petition, the union government told the high court in March that action should be taken against the significant social media intermediaries (SSMIs) for not issuing prior notice to individuals before suspending their accounts for any alleged violations. The Centre said that the user can initiate proceedings against a social media platform for suspending his or her account without a prior notice.
The Centre also underlined that SSMIs (such as Facebook and Instagram) must respect the fundamental rights of the individuals by giving them proper notice before suspending the accounts, failing which they should be held accountable for subjugating and supplanting rights of speech and expression.
Meta also underlined that it is not obliged to carry a public duty, i.e protection of freedom and speech, as done by the “State” since it is a private entity.
Saying that Instagram is a free and voluntary platform and no individual has any fundamental right to use it, Meta said that when a user joins the platform, he/she signs a contract with the company and agrees to the conditions.
“Meta does not perform an inalienable sovereign function and does not exclusively perform a function of public importance as a monopoly in its field. Meta is a private party, and Instagram users in India enter into an agreement with Meta when they register to use the Instagram Service. The Instagram Service is a free and voluntary platform, and petitioner (Wokeflix) has no fundamental right to use it,” the reply read.
It added that the account in question was reinstated within 72 hours.
It said that instead of filing a civil suit, the petitioner has preferred to file a writ petition, which should be dismissed. It said that the high court’s jurisdiction cannot be invoked against it, since it is a private company and not a “State” or “Other Authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
“Petitioner is erroneously trying to define Meta’s action of disabling their post and account as a quasi-judicial act, when it is merely action taken in accordance with a private contract and has resulted in a contractual dispute between two private parties. Given that the relationship between Meta and petitioner is purely contractual, and that Meta does not have judicial or quasi-judicial authority, petitioner’s attempt to obtain reliefs in the nature of certiorari should be denied,” Meta added.
