Last week, the Karnataka high court dismissed Twitter’s legal challenge against multiple orders by the Union government to block user accounts. The company’s challenge was based on several grounds. It contended that blocking users, instead of their specific posts, was excessive and that the rules did not, in reality, give the administration such a prerogative. It also said that the orders were illegal because they were excessive, and because the authorities neither communicated any reasons for the decisions nor issued any notices to the users. On all of these grounds, the court disagreed with the company’s claims and, in doing so, held that its delay in abiding by the directions was an actionable ignorance of the law. The court, thus, slapped a fine of ₹50 lakh on the San Francisco-based company.
There is a simple way to look at the decision, which legal experts said was a crucial precedent: The judgement makes it clear that the law of the land must be followed. Twitter moved court in mid-2022 after the Union government threatened action against its representatives. The ruling noted this – it labelled it “willful non-compliance” — and made it the basis for the fine. The import is clear: If you do not agree with the law, challenge it in court. But not complying with it will have repercussions. This consequence appeared to be especially important to stress because Twitter is a foreign company, and how quickly it adheres to such directions is relevant since the medium is instant and its reach wide.
There is also a larger issue about regulating Big Tech inasmuch as its ability to spread fake news is concerned. Twitter is a media company, but because of its status as an intermediary, gets away without adhering to any of the responsibilities of a media company. That needs to change — in the interests of society at large, and in the interests of fair competition.
The court also touched upon a question that has divided experts and civil rights activists alike – how transparent is the process (and a subsequent administrative review) through which orders are issued to block online content. The court recognised that it had the power to wade into this matter but refrained from doing so “at the instance of a foreign entity engaged in a speculative litigation”. But it remains an important issue.
Enjoy unlimited digital access with HT Premium
Subscribe Now to continue reading
