Thread by @barandbench

Hearing Alert: 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟'𝐬 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐂

Supreme Court to hear plea by Ajit Mohan @secondatticus ( @Facebook India Head) challenging Delhi govt panel summons to him regarding role of the social media portal in #DelhiRiots2020
#SupremeCourt

Facebook India chief has submitted that the Delhi Assembly's committee does not have the Authority to compel him to appear before it, since the same issue was already before a parliamentary panel.
@AamAadmiParty @ArvindKejriwal @LtGovDelhi @raghav_chadha

.@secondatticus is set to argue that
"is no law that empowers a State Legislature, including a committee formed by that Legislature, to take coercive action against any person unless it obstructs or impedes its legislative functions."
#DelhiRiots

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari assembles.

Hearing begins.

SC poses a question.

The power in respect of these actions do not vest with these bodies, is that the point?

Senior Advocate Harish Salve for petitioner argues.

Salve: We have received two summons. I have two independent points

1. Privilege does not extend to this kind of inquiry
2. You cannot put me in the pain of punishment by asking me to appear.

#SupremeCourt @Facebook

(Salve reads the summons issued to Ajit Mohan by the Committee which requires his presence to "testify" and for his opinion)

Salve: I don't know whether they want him as a witness or an expert.

Salve: We wrote a letter on 13th September saying withdraw your summons you don't have the power.

(Salve reads the acknowledgement received in response of this letter where Mohan's presence was required again)

#SupremeCourt #DelhiRiots2020 @secondatticus @Facebook

Salve: Privilege is something to be decided by the Assembly. A committee cannot decide whether action on privilege can be taken or not.

(Salve highlights that non presence of Mohan was said to be deemed as "breach of privilege" in the summons)

Salve: This is a serious threat.

Salve: Important points we make are two fold ~

- I have a right u/A 19, and
- The Right to free speech includes right not to speak.

Salve: As a house you may decide whatever you want to do but if I do not want to participate and give my views before the Committee then... And please consider I work for a US based company. I do not want to comment on this politically sensitive issue.

Salve: Wall Street journal has accused Facebook of favouring a certain party but I don't want to get into all this.

My Constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21 are violated when I am forced to come on oath and give my views.

Salve: As a house they may form whatever committee to look into an issue but when they are forcing me to come on oath and give me views and opinions and testify at the threat of punishment, this is completely contradictory.

#SupremeCourt #DelhiRiots2020 #Facebook

Salve: The moment you come to an inquiry of this kind, it is an inquisition and where is the authority of law?

A.14, 19 and 21 is clearly engaged.

(Salve now refers to Article 239AA(3) in relation to the special status for the NCT Delhi)

#SupremeCourt #DelhiRiots2020

(Salve argues that Public order and Police are two subjects that stand excluded from the power and authority of the Delhi Legislative assembly)

Salve: The disputes so far have centred around the power to make laws.

(Salve is referrong yo Articles 194(3) and 194(4) in relation to Powers, privileges, etc, of the House of Legislatures and members and committees)

Salve: In a constitutional framework such as ours, can a person be punished summarily without a proper trial and absent legislation

Salve: There is no question of recognising an action that impinges upon one's Article 21.

If you want to impinge on my rights then it has to be with the authority of law.

(Salve refers to the tests of laid down in Maneka Gandhi case)

#SupremeCourt #DelhiRiots2020

Salve: Breach of privilege is not exception under Article 19(2). Contempt of court, yes.

Justice Kaul: What is proposition you are making for which you are citing the judgment? We cannot decide this issue finally at this point which is why we posed the question.

#SupremeCourt

Salve: I have only two points to make

Does privilege extend to areas such as this?

If it does, is it compatible with my A.19 rights?

(Salve adds that no coercive action should be taken against Ajit Mohan)

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for @Facebook is now making submissions.

Rohatgi: He (Ajit Mohan) is not being summoned because he made some comments. He is being summoned because he is an employee of my client (Facebook)

#SupremeCourt #DelhiRiots2020 #Facebook

Rohatgi: If he (Mohan) does not go before the committee, it is not breach of privilege.

I personally as a lawyer have been called by Parliament for giving opinions number of times.

You cannot compel and say non appearance will be breach of privilege. There is no penalisation.

Rohtagi: They (the committee) have held a press conference where they declared Facebook guilty.

(Rohtagi reading the transcript of the press conference where Facebook was said to be "prima facie involved" in inciting violence)

#SupremeCourt #Facebook #DelhiRiots2020

Rohatgi: In the press conference they said that incriminating material was not taken down. If it was not taken down, then everyone has right to move the Court for it.

Everyday Facebook is told to take down material that is in violation of the laws. They could have gone to Court.

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi is now arguing on behalf of the Respondent.

Singhvi: The case they are trying to make out, cannot be made out.

Justice Kaul: As far as notice is concerned, we are going to issue it. You argue on protective order or relief to be given or not.

Singhvi: Privilege and coercion is projected to get orders from My Lords.

Justice Kaul: You have given them the chance to by sending the orders (summons)

#SupremeCourt #DelhiRiots2020

Singhvi: Their whole petition is focussed on Articles 19 and 21.

Justice Aniruddha Bose: Article 19 can apply to Petitioner 1 (Ajit Mohan) because you are compelling him to say something.

#SupremeCourt #Facebook #DelhiRiots2020

Singhvi: This person is called ONLY AS A WITNESS and no coercive steps...

Justice Kaul: If you are trying to change the legal tenor then it must be in those terms. You may have to take a stand for this Committee... You may have to file an affidavit to clarify this.

Singhvi: The points I am making that can be taken on record are ~

1. only as a witness
2. No coercive action
3. Reason Facebook is called, not as an accused, but want to get safeguard measures from them as to how the platform will not be misused.

Singhvi: He is only being summoned as a witness.

Justice Kaul: This is not what you have said in the notices. You have advised them, advise them better and issue better notices.

Singhvi: I will rectify the order and address the deficiencies that are bothering My Lords.

Justice Kaul: I'm sure you will be able to remedy the notice. And in that press conference, if you have said those things, then you will have to take a stand.

Singhvi argues that the transcript of the press conference read out is misleading because it intended to show that Facebook was misused.

Singhvi urges the Court to record his submissions and points out that Ajit Mohan was required to be present before the Committee today at 3. On account of the hearing, the meeting is deferred.

Singhvi assures the Court that he will file an affidavit addressing all the issues.

#SupremeCourt issues notice on Ajit Mohan's petition.

Court gives one weeks' time to the respondent to file counter affidavit.

Supreme Court records that the Committee will not hold a meeting qua this petition till further orders.

Matter to be heard next on Oct 15.

[Breaking] Ajit Mohan was summoned as a witness, without threat of coercive action: Delhi govt's Peace & Harmony Committee; SC issues notice @Facebook @secondatticus @AamAadmiParty @raghav_chadha #DelhiRiots2020 #delhigovernment #Facebook

bit.ly/33RAeoD