E-Paper
Top court serves notice to former Twitter India MD on U.P. government’s plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against a Karnataka high court order, which had quashed a police notice seeking personal appearance of then Twitter India managing director Manish Maheshwari for a probe into a communally sensitive video uploaded by a user on the micro-blogging website
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against a Karnataka high court order, which had quashed a police notice seeking personal appearance of then Twitter India managing director Manish Maheshwari for a probe into a communally sensitive video uploaded by a user on the micro-blogging website.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana, issued a notice to Maheshwari, who was moved to the US by Twitter in August as senior director, revenue strategy and operations.
“We issue notice. We will hear the matter in detail,” observed the bench, which also comprised justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.
Earlier, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Uttar Pradesh police, told the bench that he is raising a question of law on the territorial jurisdiction of the Karnataka high court in entertaining a petition against proceedings pending in Uttar Pradesh.
Appearing for the Twitter official, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sidharth Luthra sought time to file a response to the state’s appeal. The court gave them four weeks to do so.
The Ghaziabad police had lodged a first information report (FIR) in June over a video purportedly showing an attack on a Muslim man. The Uttar Pradesh police claimed the video was manipulated to present a skewed communal narrative, and it was amplified by its spread on Twitter.
Subsequently, Ghaziabad police issued to Bengaluru-based Maheshwari a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, demanding his personal presence before them. The Uttar Pradesh police also rejected Maheshwari’s request to let him appear through video-conferencing.
Maheshwari then approached the Karnataka high court, which held in July that the petition challenging the notice was maintainable. Justice G Narendar of the high court also noted that Section 41A notice was resorted to as an arm-twisting method after Maheshwari did not respond to the initial notice sent to him.
“Provisions of the statute cannot be permitted to become tools of harassment. Respondent (UP Police) has not placed even an iota of material to demonstrate even prima facie involvement of the petitioner (Maheshwari),” the HC order had said.
