Category: <span>Information and Technology</span>

17 Sep

Whether Intermediaries Like Telegram Can be Directed to Disclose the Identity of the Creators of the Channels Infringing Copyright or Trade Mark of Other Person?

The dispute surrounding listing of Rooh Afza, manufactured by a company based in Pakistan, on Amazon has been broiling and the matter is being heard by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which in its interim order has recently directed Amazon to remove the Pakistan based Rooh Afza from its platform in India. Apart from the violation of Hamdard’s IP rights in India over Rooh Afza, the listing of Pakistan-manufactured products was found to be lacking the contact details of the manufacturer, thus making Amazon, an intermediary under Information Technology Act, 2002 (“IT Act”), liable for the lack of the relevant information which could potentially mislead consumers about the product they might be purchasing, or they might wrongly assume that the Pakistan Hamdard is associated with the Indian Hamdard Laboratories. It is now trite that the platforms which are intermediaries under IT Act shall be liable to address the complaint of copyright or trademark violation by de-listing or removing the product or channel.

Similarly, Telegram, the messaging app, also falls within the category of an intermediary under IT Act. The platform shall be liable to remove channels that violate the IP rights of the owners. However, the question that recently came up for consideration before the Delhi High Court was different. The issue emerged when the Plaintiffs – Ms. Neetu Singh, who owns a coaching academy and is an author of books and contents for the preparation of competitive examinations including the examinations of Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Bank Probationary Officer (PO), CDS, NDA, etc. and her company K.D. Campus Pvt. Ltd. found that her copyrighted works in form of videos, lecture, books and study material etc. were illegally being disseminated through various Telegram channels. According to the Plaintiffs, since any abuse on Telegram channels can be reported as per the Privacy Policy of Telegram, the Plaintiffs after acquiring knowledge of the illegal dissemination of the Plaintiffs’ works, called Telegram to take down the impugned channels and also sent e-mails to the e-mail addresses where abuse can be reported. As a response some channels were taken down and others continued to exist while new channels came up like hydra heads. Taking down the channels itself was turning out to be completely ineffective in such a scenario. The infringers operated through private channels and the phone numbers or other details were not visible. Thus, it was not possible to locate the owners of such channels. Since Telegram also makes secret chats possible, the phone numbers could not be traced and the identity of the person(s) was also unknown. Such information is exclusively available only with Telegram.

Telegram had a limited defense in the said suit. As it was already in the process of taking down such infringing channels, it only opposed the grant of relief to the plaintiffs in the interim application to the extent that it cannot share the data relating to the creators or users of the channels. Telegram contended that the said data is stored in Telegram’s data servers in Singapore and the law of Singapore prohibits such disclosure. Telegram uses a distributed physical infrastructure and is bound by the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act, 2012, Singapore. Telegram itself is a Dubai-based company and is bound by the laws of Dubai. Moreover, In India it being an intermediary under the IT Act, it was not liable to disclose the identity as none of the pre-conditions which permit the intermediary to disclose the identity of the users, as per the IT Guidelines were satisfied. Telegram relied on Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics, 2021 (IT Guidelines) and contended that unless and until, any one of the situations as contemplated in the first proviso to Rule 4(1)(2) of the said guidelines was satisfied, even a Court order cannot be passed directing disclosure of the basic subscriber information. As per Section 72A of the IT Act, any disclosure of information in breach of a lawful contract i.e., the contract between the Telegram platform and the subscriber/ creator of the impugned channels, would also be contrary to law and would constitute an offence.

The Court started its analysis by recording its concern that the number of channels that can be created despite taking down of existing ones are innumerable. The creators of the channels were able to mask their identity on account of how the app operates and its policies. Therefore, repeated blocking of the channels was proving to be insufficient. This is the fulcrum of the reasoning given by the court in the judgment.

The Court looked into the actions that Telegram is required to take as per its own policy. As per the Q&A provided on Telegram, it does not process any requests related Telegram chats and group chats as they are private amongst their participants. However, in relation to the sticker sets, channels, and bots on Telegram which are publicly available it has been provided that – “If you see a bot, channel, or sticker set that is infringing on your copyright, kindly submit a complaint to [email protected].” The Plaintiffs did follow the procedure and registered its complaint.

The Court then went on to analyse the Copyright Act, 1957 to determine if the Indian Courts have jurisdiction to direct the Respondent-Telegram to disclose the identity of the creators of the channels in the light of the fact that the Telegram stores the data on cloud and that its servers are located in Singapore – this being the core defense sought by the Respondent. The Court ruled that since the Plaintiff was the owner of copyright in the works, this alone fulfills the criteria of jurisdiction as per Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act which states that an owner can file a suit for infringement in a place where the said owner resides or carries on his business. This makes Delhi High Court the court of competent jurisdiction. The Court added that as the materials being circulated relate to Indian competitive examinations, it is likely that the infringers, though unidentified at this stage, may also be based out of India.

The Court further reasoned that the provisions of the Copyright Act were widely worded to be able to cover and extend protection in the situation where the illegal activities were done with the aid of recent technology as in the present case. The definition of “infringing copy” was broad enough to cover electronic copies which were being circulated on Telegram channels. Not only Section 14(1)(a) specifically included reproduction by “electronic means”, the devices of the channel operators including smart phones, computers, servers, and such other devices, which were permitting and enabling such dissemination and communication, would constitute “plates” within Section 2(t) of the Act (defined as “any device used for reproducing copies of the work”) and they would constitute “duplicating equipment”. The Court therefore concluded that “… both civil and criminal Courts in India would always be vested with jurisdiction to adequately deal with dissemination of infringing material through such devices and merely because the messaging service has its server located abroad, the same cannot result in the infringer escaping from the consequences of infringement. All contentions to the contrary would be untenable.” The Court then noted that the only party that is in possession of the information relating to the devices used, IP addresses used, channels created, number of users, identity of the devices through mobile numbers etc., was Defendant No.1 – Telegram.

The Court laid additional reasons for concluding jurisdiction in favour of the Indian Courts and why the Singaporean law cannot be an excuse for Telegram to justify the non-furnishing of the information relating to the channels –

infringement unabatedly was continuing within India;
Since the content was for preparation of exams in India, the accounts of infringing channels were likely to have been created from India and the data of such accounts would have been uploaded from India;
For the same reason the devices used in circulating the infringing material must be located in India and so be the owners of such channels/devices;
the conventional concepts of territoriality no longer would exist, as the data is accessible across different jurisdictions, including India – the physical server being outside India is inconsequential in determining jurisdiction of Indian Courts.
On analysis of law of Singapore, the Court observed that the law specifically recognized violations of law (which in this case is violation of copyright and other intellectual property rights) as an exception to privilege of privacy, when details of the originators of the infringing data can be revealed
Furthermore, the copyrighted works are entitled to automatic protection in all WTO countries under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886 read with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1995 to which Singapore, a WTO country, is a signatory. This shall provide reciprocal protection to authors who can enjoy rights across the world even without seeking registrations – India recognizes copyright in foreign works and reciprocally, foreign countries recognize the copyright granted under Indian Law.

While enumerating the remedies that an IP owner or a copyright owner is vested with, the Court stated that owner has the right to seek injunction and the right to claim damages. The latter remedy acts as a deterrent against further infringement. However, the remedy shall become completely a ‘toothless relief’ if infringers are permitted to hide their identity through technological means provided by Telegram, and further if their identity is not directed to be disclosed. Injunction becomes equally ineffective since it does not restrain the infringers from creating new infringing channels. ‘Take down’ or blocking orders were merely token relief. Plaintiffs would then be required to seek an injunction for every new channel which means undue and continuous harassment of plaintiffs which cannot be “integral to public policy behind the legislation.” Thus, the identity of the operators of the channels was required to be disclosed.

In respect of Telegram’s submission of it being an intermediary, and being obliged to not disclose the details of the originator of the information, in the opinion of this Court, these guidelines (esp. Rules 3 and 4 of the IT Guidelines) did not in any manner obviate the duty of Telegram as a platform to take all effective steps required to protect IP rights, including rights of copyright owners. The Court referred to the judgment in My Space Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., (2017) 236 DLT 478 (DB) wherein it was held that section 79 grants only a “measured privilege to an intermediary” and provides for an affirmative defence and not a blanket immunity from liability and it certainly does not pose a barrier in the applicability of the Copyright Act. The Court further underlined that the intermediary is to be granted safe harbour, so long as it complies with the requirements of law. Practically the Court cannot supervise such infringements all the time and, thus, the origin and source of the infringing material had to be traced.

The Court further asserted that the Court has power to exercise its authority under Order XI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to direct disclosure of documents and information relating to ‘any matter in question in a suit’.

While dealing with the contention of the Defendant that disclosing of information related to the creators of the infringing channels shall amount to violation of their privacy rights, the Court emphasized that under the IT Act and Rules, Telegram also has a duty to expeditiously remove or disable access to the unlawful material under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. In addition, under Rule 3 of the IT Guidelines, the intermediary has a duty to tell its users not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information, which infringes on copyright or other proprietary rights or violates any law. This is buttressed by Telegram’s Privacy Policy which does not permit spamming, phishing and other abuses. Therefore, the Court ruled that the fundamental rights of privacy or protection of freedom of speech and expression would not extend to protect personal data related to the infringers. It was only the “processing” of data, which can be stopped for protection of fundamental rights. Disclosure of such data pursuant to a Court order would not fall in the definition of “processing”. Moreover, it is trite that the fundamental right cannot be used by any person or entity in order to escape the consequences of illegal actions.

While Telegram relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Court was of the opinion that if there is a law in existence to justify the disclosure of information and there is a need for the disclosure considering the nature of encroachment of the right then privacy cannot be a ground to justify non-disclosure, so long as the same was not disproportionate. Thus, whenever the data is sought for a legitimate purpose, and for curbing the violation of law, including infringement of copyright, such action shall be in line with the Judgment given in Puttaswamy.

The Copyright Act is the law that clearly requires “infringing copies” to be taken into custody. Finally, a perusal of the provisions of Section 81 of the IT Act shows that the provisions of the IT Act are supplemental to the provisions of the Copyright Act:

“81. Act to have overriding effect.–The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall restrict any person from exercising any right conferred under the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957) or the Patents Act, 1970 (39 of 1970).” Finally, the Court after reviewing the law in the matter observed as a matter of public policy also if the protection of copyright is not evolved as per the changing times and if the issue is not nipped in a bud especially in the light of the fact that during the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers and the education system as a whole, have taken great initiative to ensure access of educational materials to students through online modes – it would have a chilling effect on the progressive initiatives taken by educators in sharing their materials and ensuring accessibility. The Court, therefore, directed Telegram to disclose the details of the channels/devices used in disseminating the infringing content, mobile numbers, IP addresses, email addresses, etc., used to upload the infringing material and communicate the same, as per the list of channels filed along with the present application. Telegram was also directed to submit list of infringing channels, if any and the data relating to the infringing channels and the details as to the devices/servers/networks on which they are created, their creators, operators including any phone numbers, IP addresses, email addresses, used for this purpose.

29 Aug

Is There A Civil or Criminal Liability of E-Market Portals like Flipkart and Amazon in Case of Persons Selling Unauthorized or Fake Products on such Portals

admin

Information and Technology

At least once in our online shopping experience, we all have returned items for not receiving a genuine product. Question arises whether the genuineness of the product is guaranteed by the e-portals where such items are listed or displayed? Can a buyer hold Flipkart or Amazon liable for letting persons/entities sell fake product through their website? Or can a company/person who owns or is an exclusive authorized dealer/distributor of the product take a legal action against such E-portals on an unauthorized person selling the same product?

E-portals like Amazon and Flipkart have been held to be “intermediary” as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“I.T. Act”) [Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries (2020) 4 SCC 162]. Intermediaries are the platforms which on behalf of another person receive, store or transmit that electronic records or provides any service with respect to that record. An intermediary includes “telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes.” As per section 79 of the I.T. Act, these portals, including social media giants like Twitter, have been given ‘safe harbour’ protection. This means an intermediary is not liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him on the website/platform of the intermediary. In other words, there is no liability of the ‘intermediary’ provided the conditions as stated under section 79 has been fulfilled by the intermediary.

In a recent case before Delhi High Court, Ashish Girdhar, the Managing Director of a company named Sanash Impex Pvt. Ltd. reported a case to Economic Wing, Delhi when his company noticed that unauthorized persons were selling products by the name DC DERMACOL on Flipkart while the Czech company DC DERMACOL, which is an international brand, had only authorized his company, Sanash Impex Pvt. Ltd., and granted it absolute and exclusive right to sell DC DERMACOL cosmetic products in India, both online and off-line. His complaint was registered as a FIR against Flipkart at the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Against the said FIR, Flipkart filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against State of NCT and Ashish Girdhar, praying for quashing of complaint.

The central argument of the Petitioner/Flipkart was that it being an ‘intermediary’’ under the I.T. Act, was protected under Section 79 of the I.T. Act, which provides a ‘safe harbour’ to intermediaries from liabilities for posting of material by third parties on their platforms. It was contented that Flipkart has complied with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (“I.T. Guidelines”) where an intermediary is only required to post a Policy indicating that certain kinds of material were impermissible to be posted on its platform. Flipkart stated that it had made the policy part of its user agreement. Amongst other cases, the Petitioner’s Counsel relied on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 2015 (5) SCC 1 and averred that the liability to take down such alleged unauthorised sites would arise only when a court order was brought to the notice of the Petitioner, Flipkart. The Counsel of the Petitioner further challenged the locus of the Respondent to file a police complaint on the ground that since as per Section 19 of the Copyright Act it is only the owner of the copyright who can file a complaint regarding infringement of copyright and the Respondent, being merely the one who has been authorized to sell the products with no assignment of copyright, could not have gotten the FIR registered. Therefore, the entire drill was stated to be a miscarriage of justice.

The Respondent, Ashish Girdhar, on the other hand contended that he had sent the information regarding the infringements to the Petitioner through 33 emails and had requested the Petitioner to take down total 10 such offending sites. Flipkart removed four of them without any court order. As per the Respondent’s Counsel once the actual information was sent to the Petitioner, it was expected to take down the site selling the offending products. If it had removed four, it did not require court order to remove the other six. The argument was that as per section 79 requirement, the Petitioner had ‘actual knowledge’ and it failed to adhere to the requirement of ‘due diligence’ and hence cannot invoke the protection under section 79 of the IT Act. The Counsel relied upon Rule 3 of the I.T. Guidelines according to which the intermediary shall not knowingly host or publish any information or shall not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of transmission, and select or modify the information contained in the transmission which infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights. The proviso states that, when the intermediary subsequently gets the information of such infringement, the removal of access to any information, data or communication link by an intermediary after such information, data or communication link comes to the actual knowledge of a person authorised by the intermediary pursuant to any order or direction, it shall not amount to hosing, publishing, editing or storing of any information that infringes the IP rights. The Rule also puts an obligation on the intermediary that upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed with electronic signature about any such information as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that is in contravention of sub-rule (2). Further the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least ninety days for investigation purposes. The Intermediary shall inform its users that in case of non-compliance with rules and regulations, user agreement and privacy policy for access or usage of intermediary computer resource, the Intermediary has the right to immediately terminate the access or usage lights of the users to the computer resource of Intermediary and remove non-compliant information. It was contented that by reading of section 79 of the IT Act, it can be inferred that the protection was available under Section 79(2) if the intermediary did certain acts while protection would be withdrawn under Section 79(3) if the intermediaries committed certain other acts.

The Court analysed the obligation of an intermediary under section 79 of the IT Act and observed that the obligation of the intermediary is to observe due diligence and follow the guidelines prescribed by the Central Government. The intermediary is also required to observe due diligence as per Rule 3 of the IT Guideline which states that intermediary shall publish the rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreement for access or usage of the intermediary’s computer resource by any person. However, any violation of these guidelines do not attract any penalty. The Court then digged into the question as to whether the FIR could have been registered at all against the Petitioner for offences under the Copyright Act and the T.M. Act? The Court started its findings by stating that I.T. Act does not provide for infringement of trademark or copyright and therefore reference was made to respective legislations. Section 63 of the Copyright Act prescribes punishment for infringement of copyright and makes an abettor equally liable for the same. The Court, therefore, closely examined whether e-portals will come within the ambit of abettor under Copyright Act. Similarly, section 103 and 104 of the TM Act prescribe penalties for any person who falsifies any trade mark or applies it to goods or sells goods or provides services to which false trade mark or false trade description is applied. The Court observed that by permitting unauthorized sale of the DC DERMACOL products, Petitioner may appear to have committed the alleged offence.

In order to examine the liability of the E-portal, the court appreciated the higher standards of proof required in case of fixing criminal liability as compared to cases involving civil liability. Whereas Court has to look into balance of probabilities in civil matters, it requires a proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in establishing criminal offence. The Court held that the platform has complied with the I.T. Guidelines by putting ‘use of the platform’ and ‘selling’ terms on their ‘Terms of Use’. On this premise, the court went on to reason that “when compliance with the “due diligence” requirement under Rule 3 of the I.T. Guidelines is evident, ex facie, the exclusion of liability under Section 79 of the I.T. Act would include exclusion from criminal prosecution”.

The Court, while addressing the contention of the Respondent on Petitioner having ‘actual knowledge’ of infringement of copyright and trade mark as communicated by the former via emails, stated that the issue regarding the claim to a trade mark or copyright is a ‘stoutly contested affair’ even before the courts and therefore an intermediary cannot be expected to take down a site/product only on communication or complaint by person aggrieved and any action without a court order in this regard would be problematic and infact cause havoc beyond imagination. Therefore, while referring to the judgment in Shreya Singhal the Court held that “the obligation to take down the offending material/sites, etc., from their platform would arise only on service of a court order upon them.” The Court, however, went to add an obiter that even when there is disobedience of order it would not amount to a criminal offence and no FIR can be registered in this regard. The Court further underlined a fundamental lacuna in the FIR that it did not even have the name of single website allegedly selling the products which were either fake or unauthorized, leave alone there being any allegation against them. The complaint was confined to the e-portals. Therefore, the Court observed that “Without determining the rights of those other sites to sell the products, prima facie, the petitioner has not committed any offence, leave alone under the Copyright Act or the T.M. Act.” Since the case was not made out on the face of the FIR, the FIR was liable to be quashed. In this judgment, therefore, the Court has once again reaffirmed that an intermediary’s obligation to take down the offending material from their platform would arise only on receipt of court order. The Court has further reasoned that any such allegation of infringement of IP rights is acutely contested matter and hence only Courts can decide such dispute and this cannot be left within the domain of the e-portals for immediate decisions and action. Moreover, the safe harbor protection under Section 79 covers both civil and criminal liabilities of intermediaries.

19 Aug

Whether Section 69A of the Information and Technologies Act, 2002 gives power to the Central Government to issue orders for blocking of social media accounts?

admin

CommonMan, Constitution of India, Information and Technology

Recently, yet another dispute stirred up between the social media giant Twitter and the Indian Government on account of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEIT) issuing a series of blocking orders to the former in relation to multiple twitter accounts and tweets posted on the social media page. As a matter of fact, the micro blogging site has been facing the heat from the Ministry since February 2021 where it has been asked to block almost 1500 accounts and 175 tweets till date. The matter precipitated when the Government finally issued notice dated 27.07.2022 to Twitter warning against punitive measures in the event Twitter does not comply with the blocking orders. Challenging the orders and notice, Twitter, which is a Significant Social Media Intermediary (SSMI) the Information Technologies Act, 2002 (2002 Act), filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking to upend 39 blocking orders issued by the MEIT in June this year under section 69A of the 2002 Act.

As per section 69A, the Central Government has power to direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block the access by the public of any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the said grounds. The Government while exercising the said power is required to record reasons in writing.

The essential argument of the Petitioner/Twitter before the Karnataka High Court is that the orders blocking contents are “procedurally and substantially deficient of the provision” and the ones blocking user accounts “demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate”. Further, the blocking orders fail to provide specifics and do not establish “proximate relationship to the grounds under Section 69A” – as to why the contents of tweets or accounts fall within the heads given under Section 69A of the 2002 Act and rather reiterate the grounds stated in the section. In other words the MEIT has not shown how content disrupts sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order, as contemplated under Section 69A of the 2002 Act. Twitter has taken the Constitutional ground of violation of freedom of speech guaranteed to the users of the platform to voice their opinion. Twitter, before the Karnataka High Court, has further claimed that the ‘blocking orders’ are arbitrary and illegal for not being in consonance with the procedure set out in the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (2009 Rules) and for not being in line with the ‘least intrusive test’ as recognised by the Supreme Court in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012] (famously known as Adhaar case).

Twitter has also cited the affidavit filed by the MEIT in the matter of Sanjay R Hegde v. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Anr [WP(C) 13275 of 2019] before the Delhi High Court. In this matter it was Twitter that had suspended Mr. Hedge’s twitter account. The issue raised in the writ petition against Twitter (averred to be doing a public function) is regarding permanent suspension of the twitter account of petitioner, Mr. Hedge, being contrary to the Twitter Rules and in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution of India. Twitter Rules prohibit contents that exhibit – a. Violence; b. Terrorism/violent extremism; c. Child sexual exploitation; d. Abuse/Harassment; e. Hateful Conduct; f. Suicide or self-harm; g. Sensitive media, including graphic violence and adult content; h. Illegal or certain regulated goods or services; i. Publication of another person’s private information; j. Publication of Non-consensual nudity; k. Platform manipulation and spam; l. Manipulating with election integrity; m. Impersonation; n. Infringement of Copyright and Trademark. As per the petitioner, Mr. Hedge, the re-post of a poem titled ‘Gorakh Pandey’s poem ‘Unko phaansi de do’ and use of picture of August Landmesser as the ‘header’/ ‘cover picture’ of his Twitter profile was not covered in any of the heads prohibited under Twitter Rules. The Writ Petition prayed for issuing appropriate writ to frame guidelines to ensure that online speech is not arbitrarily censored by social media websites and also for restoring the account.

Clearly, the issues involved in the two matters, presently pending before the high courts, are different. While the petition before the Delhi High Court questions the action of blocking by the social media platform – Twitter, the petition before the Karnataka High Court challenges the orders issued by the Government to Twitter directing it to block the accounts of the users.

Further, the issue before the Delhi High Court is whether Twitter is within its rights and authority to block the account of Mr. Hedge (which perhaps still remains blocked)? This would also necessarily require the finding on whether a writ is maintainable against a private entity like Twitter and whether it is performing a public function so as to be covered under the umbrella of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issues before Karnataka High Court, on the other hand, is whether the exercise of power of issuing successive blocking orders by the Government to Twitter under section 69A of the 2002 Act is ultra vires or in other words is excessive and arbitrary? Whether this is a violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India?

The MIET has exercised its power under section 69A of the 2002 Act which not only gives an authority to exercise power of blocking but also lays down obligation on the Government to state the reasons to be recorded in writing while issuing the blocking to the intermediary. Further, when the Central Government has satisfied itself that the grounds provided under section 69A are met, it can by order direct the intermediary to block ‘any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource’. It does not state that the power extends to blocking or ordering the blocking of the very social media account permanently or even temporarily, essentially taking away from the account user’s right of any future publication (which changes the nature of order to punitive from protective) and also curbs the right of a reader to have access to the previous and future tweets which were not objectionable under section 69A of the 2002 Act. The power given to the Central Government under section 69A(1) is further subject to section 69A(2) which states that the “procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed”. The procedure and safeguards have been provided under Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Therefore, there are two clear riders to the exercise of power under section 69A(1) of the 2002 Act. Firstly, to follow the procedure as given in the 2009 Rules and secondly, while issuing the order, to record reason for its satisfaction in writing. Since the exercise of power by the Government is subject to these conditions, any order issued without following the due process shall not only render it illegal but also ultra vires and in conflict with fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The analysis and finding of the same is primarily factual (other than to determine the essential nature of power and its objective given under section 69A) and the Court shall certainly go into the fact finding whether the riders were fulfilled by the Government. With regard to the argument regarding the constitutionality of blocking orders and the same being ‘disproportionate’, Twitter has apparently relied on the ‘least intrusive test’ and ‘proportionality standard of review’ or ‘proportionality test’. It is pertinent to make clear at this point that Twitter is not challenging the constitutionality of the provision under section 69A of 2002 Act. The law is settled and the provision has been upheld in the matter of Shreya Singhal v Union of India [Writ Petition (Criminal) No.167 of 2012 decided on 24^th March 2015]. It remains to be seen whether the said tests can be applied in the case of exercise of power by a Government authority under a provision of law that has been held to be constitutional (this not being a case of challenge of the legislative provision itself).

DISCLAIMER & CONFIRMATION