E-Paper
Karnataka HC defers trial on UP Police’s plea against Twitter to July 5
Bengaluru The Karnataka high court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of the case between Uttar Pradesh police and Twitter top executive, Manish Maheshwari to July 5
Bengaluru The Karnataka high court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of the case between Uttar Pradesh police and Twitter top executive, Manish Maheshwari to July 5.
Maheshwari had filed for a transit anticipatory bail after he was summoned to appear before Ghaziabad police in connection with the posting of some objectionable content on the platform.
Justice G Narendra posted the matter for July 5.
The court, on Thursday issued orders that no coercive action should be taken against Maheshwari. The court also added that the Ghaziabad police can take a statement on video conferencing.
The police on June 17 sent a set of summons over to the social media company over a video that went viral and appeared to portray a hate crime in which a 72-year-old Muslim man from Ghaziabad was seen beaten up and his beard chopped off by the attackers, Hindustan Times reported on June 18.
Maheshwari was expected to visit Loni Kotwali in Ghaziabad on June 17 at 10.30 am.
“Clarification given by you is inappropriate. Being the MD of Twitter in India, you are the representative of the company. Therefore, you are bound by the Indian law to cooperate in the investigation,” the notice sent by the police said, Hindustan Times reported on June 17.
The Ghaziabad police issued a notice under 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on June 17 to Maheshwari, who they believe is the Managing Director of the company.
Advocates appearing on behalf of Maheshwari said that the latter was not the MD and another employee of the company.
Maheshwari responded to this notice that he was only an employee and knew nothing of this case but offered to appear before the investigating authorities and record his statement through VC as he was in Bengaluru.
A couple of days later, the investigating officer issued a notice under 41(A) which mandates that it is always that a person who appears will be under the mercy of the investigator, according to the advocate cited above.
