E-Paper
Ghaziabad assault video case: K’taka HC quashes UP police notice to Twitter exec
The high court said the notice issued to Maheshwari under Section 41A of the criminal procedure code (CrPC) must be read as a notice under Section 160.
The Karnataka high court on Friday canceled a notice by the Uttar Pradesh police that ordered Bengaluru-based Twitter India managing director Manish Maheshwari to appear in person for questioning in connection with the video of an assault of an elderly man in Ghaziabad’s Loni in June, and told the police to either record his statement as a witness via video conference or send a team to Bengaluru.
The high court said the notice issued to Maheshwari under Section 41A of the criminal procedure code (CrPC) must be read as a notice under Section 160. A notice under Section 160 is sent to question a witness, who they believe may be aware of facts related to a complaint. A notice under section 41A, however, is sent to summon a party named in a complaint. Maheshwari interpreted the change in the section under which he was being summoned to imply that he could also be arrested and approached the high court against it.
“The provisions of the statute cannot be permitted to become tools of harassment. The respondent has not placed even an iota of material which would prima facie show involvement of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has made out a case. Section 41A notice is issued by malafide and the petition is maintainable. The Annexure A1 notice is quashed”, justice G Narender said in his order.
“The invocation of Section 41A was resorted to as an arm-twisting method after Maheshwari did not respond to initial notice under Section 160 CrPC,” the bench observed.
The judge noted that Maheshwari was not arraigned as an accused in the case registered by the Ghaziabad police on June 15 over a video that alleged an elderly Muslim man in Ghaziabad was a victim of hate crime. Police said their investigation later revealed that the incident was over a personal dispute and booked nine people, including Twitter India, for allegedly circulating false information to fan communal tension.
The UP Police initially summoned Maheshwari as a witness on June 17 after a first information report (FIR) was registered over the video but later served another notice under Section 41A after he told the police to record his statement over video conference. The Karnataka high court, which, on June 24, granted him interim protection from arrest, was earlier scheduled to pronounce its judgment on July 13, which was further deferred to July 20, and then to July 22. The judgment is now expected to be pronounced on Friday.
Friday’s Karnataka high court also found merit in Maheshwari’s contention that the firm and its employees do not have control over the data of Twitter users.
“Material placed on record demonstrates that the entity, Twitter India, is an independent entity and the control of the affairs of the company is in the hands of Twitter Ireland. The information available cannot be said to be indicating that petitioner controlling the contents of the social media platforms run by Twitter Inc”, the high court noted.
During the hearings, Manish Maheshwari described Twitter India as an independent entity, claiming that its parent company, Twitter Inc, does not have a single share in it.
“Twitter Inc is a parent company. We have absolutely nothing to do with it. Twitter India is an independent organisation and independent institution,” CV Nagesh, Maheshwari’s counsel, told the court when asked whether the social media giant could be called a “parent company.”
The FIR against Twitter came against the backdrop of the central government’s escalating conflict with Twitter over compliance with a new set of rules notified in February that demanded extra due diligence from social media intermediaries.
On June 16, the central government said Twitter will not be protected from penal action under Section 79 of the IT Act, which absolves social media firms of liability for third party content unless it follows the new Information Technology (IT) rules. The social media firm finally appointed a resident grievance officer and chief compliance officer earlier this month apart from releasing the first transparency report mandated by the rules.
