The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday sought the Union government’s response to an interim application filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) seeking restoration of its Gujarat unit’s Facebook page and Instagram handle, Bar and Bench reported. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice after Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave sought two weeks to file a reply.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for AAP, told the Court the party would remove any specific post found to be objectionable, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, if the Court restored the accounts. “My website is gone. It can’t be like that,” he submitted.
What is the case about?
- The accounts were blocked a day before the elections. Farasat submitted that the Gujarat unit’s Facebook page and Instagram handle were blocked a day before local body elections in the state.
- Meta cited Section 79(3)(b) as the basis. Meta informed AAP that it had restricted access to the accounts in India pursuant to a request from a government or law enforcement agency under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- No order, no notice, no reasons. AAP alleges that no one supplied it the blocking direction, and that the accounts went down without notice, hearing, or a reasoned order.
- Blocking the whole account is the objection. AAP argues that blocking the entire page and handle of a recognised national political party, instead of restricting any specific offending content, disproportionately restricts political speech and violates natural justice and proportionality.
What is AAP asking the Court to declare? At the May 8 hearing, when the Court first issued notice, LawBeat reported the following:
- That Section 79(3)(b) confers no power to block. Section 79 grants intermediaries immunity from liability for third-party content they host, and sub-section (3)(b) withdraws that protection if a platform fails to remove unlawful content expeditiously after receiving actual knowledge through a court order or government notification. AAP argues the provision cannot stretch into a substantive blocking mechanism, unlike Section 69A, which empowers the government to block information on limited grounds such as sovereignty, public order, and national security.
- That the action was unconstitutional: The plea seeks a declaration that blocking the “@aapgujarat” accounts is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 19(1)(a), along with quashing of the directions and production of the records relating to them.
- That political parties get specific safeguards. AAP wants the Court to mandate prior notice, an opportunity of hearing, and written reasons before authorities block official accounts of registered political parties, in accordance with Article 19(2) and Section 69A.
The Bench tagged the matter with a pending public interest litigation filed by the Software Freedom Law Center, India, which…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
