Thread by @barandbench

The Karnataka High Court will soon hear a plea by Twitter challenging account-level blocking claiming that it is a disproportionate measure & violates Constitutional rights of users.

Live updates below 👇🏽

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

The case will be heard by Justice Krishna S Dixit.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

During the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for Twitter and informed the court that it was asked by the Centre to block multiple accounts during the farmer's protests in 2021.

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar for Twitter: My colleagues have studied five jurisdictions and I have filed a compilation of about 300 pages

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Datar: USA, UK, Australia and European Union (27 countries)
In the US, because of first amendment, there is no question of government directing anybody to take anything down

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Datar: In Australia, the law creates the role of E-Safety Commissioner
He is empowered to issue blocking requests/notices
Justice Dixit : The commissioner is not bound by the rules of procedural fairness. Can you say something about that?

Datar : He can do so in cases of abhorrent violations. His order is subject to appeal.
#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Datar: Even though he can pass an ex parte order, para 220 provides for a review.
Appeal is expressly available to social media services etc.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Datar: Australia has noted that both social media and end-user are aggrieved parties.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Datar: Wherever there is abhorrent violent conduct, we have taken it down.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Datar: In Australia, duration of blocking request is only three months. In India, a blocking request is a permanent request.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Datar: with utmost respect, this comparative study might not go anywhere because we have to refer to our statute

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Except USA, in other countries, the usual procedure is this - if the content is abhorrently violent, it can be blocked. There is a provision for revocation in most cases.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

There can't be an omnibus general blocking order unless the nature of the contents are in violation of the grounds mentioned in 69A(IT Act)

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

In India, there's no provision of appeal, there's no tribunal and my only remedy is invoking article 226

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

The direction in the impugned orders saying that no notice will be issued to users is illegal.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

You (Justice Dixit) asked how I'm aggrieved
First, if it is my platform and the user is prevented from using it, if it is not violative of 69A, i have the right to carry the content. Unless it falls foul of 69A, I should be able to carry it.
#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Senior Advocate Ashok Haranhalli appears physically for twitter. He is not audible.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Justice Dixit: How is "reasons to be recorded" interpreted by the Supreme Court? Has it been interpreted as "reasons to be recorded and communicated"?
#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Justice Dixit reiterates : How was the apex court interpreted? Is it "reasons to be recorded and kept in the drawer" or "reasons to be recorded and communicated to the aggrieved"

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Dixit: Does Shreya Singhal Judgment interpret the word "or" to mean "and"?

Sr Adv Haranhalli: broadly

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Court rises for lunch and will continue hearing Twitter's arguments post lunch

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Hearing resumes

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Dixit: Can blocking order not be on request of the public at all?
Haranahalli: They cannot do it

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Haranahalli: By not issuing notice, my rights are also offended. The users content goes undefended.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Haranahalli: rule 16 says review committee will review once and if it upholds blocking order, it won't review again

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Haranahalli: Question of confidentiality doesn't arise between authority and intermediary

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Dixit: Read article 310 of constitution. Let's see how it's structured.
Haranahalli reads

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Dixit: no, 311

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Dixit: The term "that authority"(as used in art 311) is missing in the rules

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Haranahalli: Wrt to confidentiality, you cannot say that I cannot disclose it to the person affected.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Dixit: Both the sides rightly submit that court can open the envelope and look into the contents. Accordingly it is done. They also submit that the same may be put in the envelope again.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Dixit: If you advance your interpretation of rule 16, it will be unreasonable. They won't be able to challenge at all.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Haranahalli: the expression "reasons to be recorded" means the recorded reasons should be conveyed to the aggrieved and the confidentiality clause enacted under rule 16 applies to all except those against whom order is issued.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Justice Dixit: If account is blocked. Can you not open a new account?
Haranahalli: once account is blocked, a person will lose followers and will have to establish themselves on the platform which will take time

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Haranahalli: When account is blocked, all tweets are removed. If a tweet is removed, other tweets remain.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Haranahalli: Doctrine of proportionality will also apply.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Court seeks Central Govt stand in Shreya Singhal v Union of India

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Justice Dixit: I cannot say ban so and so paragraph of so and so chapter of a book. That will make no sense.
Haranahalli: You are not banning the author.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Justice Dixit: All these years, the phrase ("reasons to be recorded") did not see any interpretation?

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Justice Dixit: Can we continue tomorrow?

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi informs court he has moved an application for impleadment.
Court: how are you concerned?
Sondhi: both parties are relying on my pleadings in a case in Delhi High Court.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Justice Dixit: Since the applicant has nothing to do with the impugned and the stand of the parties ....merely because the applicant happens to be in litigation before another HC wherein litigation involves almost a similar subject matter is too feeble a ground to...

...enter array of parties in front of another HC. Application for impleadment is rejected.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Sondhi: Permit me to stay on record as an intervenor to assist the court in case the parties rely on part of the pleadings and not the entite pleadings.

Court refuses.

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia

Hearing concludes

#KarnatakaHighCourt @TwitterIndia