HC slams Twitter ‘laxity’ in suspending account over ‘blasphemous’ post

A Twitter representative declined to comment on the matter.

The Delhi high court on Monday chastised Twitter for laxity in suspending an account posting “objectionable” and “blasphemous” material about Hindu Gods and Goddesses, and said the media platform would have been more careful and sensitive in case of any other religion.

The bench asked Twitter to submit its policy for blocking of individuals or accounts, noting that the platform has previously blocked accounts of people in public life.

“It is ultimately boiling down to this that people you feel sensitive about …about the content, you will block them (but) you are not bothered about sensitivities of other people in other regions of the world, of other ethnicities or religions. We daresay that if the same kind of thing were to be done in relation to another religion, you would be much more careful and sensitive,” a bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Navin Chawla said.

A Twitter representative declined to comment on the matter.

The court, while hearing a plea by a lawyer Aditya Deshwal seeking removal of such content and permanent suspension of the concerned user’s account, also took exception to an argument by Twitter that it cannot block an account on its own without a court or government order.

“If this is the logic, why have you blocked Mr Trump?”, it asked, referring to the account of the former US President that the platform blocked on January 8, 2021 following the violence at US Capitol. The defence of needing a court order “...means that you will not use your own sense of judgment, your intellect, when you find something absolutely, brazenly blasphemous or brazenly offending the sentiments of the people,” the court said .

The bench asked Twitter to submit its policy for blocking of individuals or accounts, noting that the platform has previously blocked accounts of people in public life.

It also directed the Union government to examine the tweets by the user @atheistrepublic and see whether a blocking order was called for under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

“Since [Twitter] has not questioned the prima facie view of this court with regard to the nature and content of the offending posts of @atheistrepublic, in our view [Twitter] should have on its own, without waiting for today’s hearing, taken down the posts which were pointed [out] by the petitioner as early as on 9th December, 2021,” the bench added.

It also ordered the user @atheistrepublic to disclose details, including location.

“We direct her to place on record on affidavit the status of @atheistrepublic, namely its constitution; its location; whether it is having any place of business in India and also place on record the particulars of its officers/representative situated in India,” said the bench, referring to the Twitter user’s counsel. According to the description on the platform, “Atheist Republic is a community of godless heathens who share their views and help each other express their atheism”. The description adds that the CEO is “@skepticsusanna” . that the community was founded by “@arminnavabi”, and that the location (of the organisation) is Vancouver, Canada. The ID has around 139000 followers.

Deshwal contended in his plea that he intimated the grievance officer of Twitter that the content posted by the user, -@atheistrepublic, was in grave contravention of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and that non-compliance of the rules would make Twitter lose its legal immunity provided under the Information Technology Act.

He has claimed that Twitter said that the content in the account is not of a category for which it takes action and cannot be removed.

At the previous hearing of the case, the court orally asked Twitter to remove the objectionable posts, saying that the social media company should respect sentiments of the general public.

On Monday, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra for Twitter told the court that an FIR has been registered by the police in Karnataka and six tweets have been removed. He said that even though the platform was not defending the actions of the user, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal, individuals can be blocked only on government or court orders.

Seeking to block the account, the petitioner in person, Aditya Deshwal, said that the new Information Technology Rules, 2021 put an onus on the social media intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook to curate and remove content that is offensive and against the rules.

The court sought to know from Twitter whether it is obliged to keep a watch on its users and find out if they are posting something offensive. It also asked whether the media company is supposed to block an account in the event of repeated complaints or to remove content every time there is a complaint.

The Union government’s counsel Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar told the court that if a user is continuously posting such content, orders are issued for blocking it. He added that Twitter does block accounts on its own on complaints received by users.

Advocate Vrinda Bhandari, the counsel representing @atheistrepublic, gave an undertaking to the court that her client would not post similar offending material till the case was decided by the court. She also argued that the IT Rules, 2021, have been challenged in court and that the case is pending adjudication.

The matter will next be heard on September 6.