Delhi HC seeks Twitter, Centre’s response on Abhijit Iyer Mitra’s suit challenging Twitter’s ban of his account

He claims that while exercising his “right to free speech and right of the public to receive and know fair and truthful information”, on July 23 he tweeted that the TV journalist with a popular news channel had furnished Zubair’s bail bond, attaching the copy of the affidavit and bail bond along with the tweet. The tweet contained private information, including phone numbers and addresses of parties that Mitra removed after he was intimated of the same by Twitter.

Pursuant to this, he posted another tweet which read, “presiding judges son on (TV channel’s name), (TV channel’s name) editor furnishes bail bond of ‘close friend’”. The tweet further read, “Reposting minus the “private info”. I’m sure twitter will find some way of protecting its resident in-house jihadist his aiders abettors.” Mitra claims that Twitter thereafter, without any explanation or without issuing any show cause notice to him, “unilaterally banned his twitter account”.

Mitra in his suit has sought a declaration that the deletion of his tweet and the consequent suspension of his account was in violation of the provisions of IT Rules, 2021. He has further sought a mandatory injunction for reinstatement of his account as well as the deleted tweet and has sought a direction to the Centre to take action against Twitter for suspending his account without following the procedure established by law.

Advocates Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma appeared for Mitra, wherein Awasthi argued that Mitra is a fairly renowned public figure and a well respected defence analyst appearing in TV debates.

Awasthi said that Mitra had posted something on twitter in July without disclosing any personal information. “I had posted something and had disclosed no private information. I had merely disclosed who put surety for the bail of Mr Mohammed Zubair, given by the Supreme Court in July, and merely on the basis of this tweet, my access to my Twitter followers has been curtailed, without following the procedure laid down under the IT rules,” Awasthi said. He further submitted that if Mitra does not disseminate his views on the war in Ukraine, it would harm his reputation.

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appeared for Twitter and sought time to file a brief affidavit stating that the suit was filed three months after the cause of action which arose in July. Poovayya further argued that Mitra’s account was not banned but in the “read-only mode” and that his grievance could be addressed if he took down the tweet in question. “But what is being sought is that the so-called tweet, which we say is violative…should continue on the platform and the Twitter handle must be restored,” Poovayya said.

The HC further directed Mitra to file an amended memo of parties, after Poovayya said that “Defendant no. 1 is shown as Twitter Communications India Private Limited and ought to be only Twitter Inc”.

The HC also issued notice on Mitra’s application for “interim mandatory injunction” directing Twitter to reinstate his account till the disposal of his lawsuit. In its application, Mitra has said that the suspension of his account by twitter for alleged violation of the platform’s guidelines are in total disregard of the IT Rules, depriving Mitra of his right to free speech and expression under the Constitution “in his inability to communicate with his 1.5 Lakh followers”.

The application states the Mitra had been incurring daily loss of outreach and engagement with his followers and his image and memory are continually diminishing and if his account which he has worked on for 10 years is not reinstated, his “Twitter impression will become obsolete with time”.