IT Act mandates informing users of reasons for blocking, Twitter tells Karnataka HC in battle against govt orders

Senior advocate for Twitter Inc Ashok Haranahalli argued that Section 69 A of the IT Act, which empowers the state to issue blocking orders, also states that the reasons for the blocking orders must be recorded. The provision in the law for recording reasons indicates that the reasons for blocking must be communicated to users, he said.

The senior counsel argued that there was no difference between a reasoned and speaking order and that both should contain reasons for the order so that the aggrieved persons can decide whether they need to challenge the order in the courts.

Section 69 A of the IT Act grants the “Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource”.

The section says that the central government or any of its authorised officers can order the blocking of access by the public to any computer resource “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense” with “reasons to be recorded in writing”.

The case was adjourned by Justice Krishna Dixit to a later date of hearing where the central government will give its response to the petition filed by Twitter Inc.

Earlier, Twitter Inc had questioned the confidentiality clause in the rules applied by the Government of India for blocking Twitter accounts and tweets – which does not allow Twitter to communicate to users the reasons for blocking their accounts.

Twitter approached the Karnataka High Court stating that the government of India’s move to block accounts of Twitter users on grounds of messages being against the interest of the country without issuing notices to the users themselves amounts to violation of norms laid down by the Supreme Court and Section 69 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Centre in a written counter said that Twitter Inc, being a foreign platform, cannot seek the freedom of speech and other rights available to Indian citizens for the users of its platform.

It argued that the majority of the 69A blocking orders issued by it are related to national security and public order issues.

“Examples of such content include anti-India, or seditious or any religious contents that have potential to incite violence and contents that affect communal harmony in the country eg. SFJ (Sikhs for Justice) or Khalistan-related content,” the Centre argued.

The government argued that it aims to ensure that “openness, safety, trust and accountability” of the Internet is protected since a “large number of Indians are using the internet and are dependent on the internet going forward”.