| 03 July 2023
In July 2022, Twitter made headlines when it took the Indian government to court over its controversial orders to block specific accounts and tweets. This unprecedented move by a social media giant sparked hope among free speech advocates who viewed it as a significant step in challenging arbitrary and opaque content takedown practices. However, last week, the Karnataka High Court dismissed Twitter's case, imposing a hefty fine of 5 million rupees ($61,000; £48,000) on the company for its failure to comply with the disputed orders for over a year. This verdict has raised concerns among digital rights experts who fear the court's decision will grant the state unchecked power to issue blocking orders without proper procedural safeguards.
Radhika Roy, a lawyer and spokesperson for the digital rights organization Internet Freedom Foundation, expressed her dismay over the judgment, stating that it essentially legitimizes the rampant misuse of the law to censor unfavorable online content, rather than addressing the issue. Many commentators now wonder about Twitter's next move. Will the social media giant comply with the takedown orders or choose to appeal the ruling?
It's important to note that Twitter filed the case under its previous leadership. Since Elon Musk assumed ownership, the company has been complying with takedown orders. In fact, following a recent meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the United States, Musk emphasized that Twitter has no choice but to obey local government laws, as failure to do so could result in its closure.
The Karnataka High Court's recent judgment has rekindled concerns about the state of free speech in India, as the government has faced accusations of increasing censorship of online content in recent years. Federal minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar asserted that all foreign internet platforms must comply with Indian laws. The number of Twitter URLs blocked by India in 2022 stands at a staggering 3,417, compared to just eight URLs blocked in 2014.
The crux of Twitter's case rested on its argument that 39 orders issued by the federal government to block accounts and tweets were illegal. Twitter contended that the government lacked the authority to block accounts, asserting that it could only block specific tweets. Additionally, Twitter claimed that the orders were devoid of proper reasoning and failed to meet the grounds required for content takedown as mandated by the law. Furthermore, the affected users were not informed by the government about the blocking actions taken against their accounts and tweets.
In response, the government maintained that the orders were lawful, citing that the contested content originated from "anti-India campaigners." It argued that informing such users about the actions taken against them might lead them to tweet anonymously and cause further harm. Consequently, the government deemed it appropriate to inform only Twitter about these orders.
The confidentiality requirement of the law makes it unclear which specific accounts and tweets were involved in the dispute. However, one instance mentioned in the court's judgment revealed that at least one account had posted tweets related to the 2021 farmer's protest against new farm laws implemented by the government.
The court's ruling now affirms the government's power to not only block tweets but also entire accounts. These blocking orders can be in effect indefinitely, and the court emphasized that users need not be informed when their content is blocked. According to the law, users or the platform hosting the information, like Twitter, should receive notice and have the opportunity to present their case in court before a blocking order is issued. In cases of emergency, the government can immediately block a website and provide notice afterward. Twitter argued that the orders issued by the government lacked written details justifying the need for website blocking. However, the court examined the tweets and accounts in question and found them to contain content that it deemed "outrageous," "treacher
ous," and "anti-national," posing a potential threat to national security and public order. The court maintained that these details had been shared with Twitter.
Furthermore, the court accepted the government's contention that detailed reasons had been provided to Twitter during review meetings prior to the issuance of blocking orders. It also ruled that providing notice to users was discretionary. The users affected, according to the court, consisted of "terrorists" and "foreign adversaries" seeking to discredit and destabilize India while jeopardizing national security on communal lines. Thus, the court concurred with the government's position that issuing notice to such "anti-India" campaigners was "not desirable."
Legal experts argue that this judgment severely restricts users' ability to defend their right to free speech. Sachin Dhawan, a program manager at the Centre for Communication Governance, emphasized that users will not be given an opportunity to defend themselves before a blocking order is issued. Additionally, even after an order is passed, they will remain uninformed about the reasons behind the content takedown. This further obscures an already secretive process, undermining basic due processes such as providing notice and a hearing to aggrieved parties.
However, a significant case pending before the Delhi High Court might yield a different outcome. The case pertains to the blocking of a satirical dowry calculator website by the government without providing notice to the website's founder. In May of last year, the High Court directed the government to furnish the founder with a copy of the order and grant him a hearing, during which the ban was upheld. The court is currently examining whether the website's blocking is justified. While the court's order to provide a copy to the founder offers hope, the final verdict is yet to be decided.
The recent ruling against Twitter underscores the challenges faced by social media platforms in navigating the delicate balance between upholding free speech and complying with local government regulations. As the Indian government strengthens its grip on online content, digital rights organizations and free speech advocates will closely monitor the implications of this judgment, hoping for a future that safeguards fundamental rights while maintaining the security and order of the state.
Comments