X Corp Vs Union Of India (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court held that blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 blocking the tweets/accounts for an indefinite period are unassailable on the doctrine of proportionality.
Facts- Petitioner, claiming to be an Intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereafter ‘Act’), is knocking at the doors of Writ Court complaining against certain Blocking Orders issued by the respondents, whereby it is directed to bar access of certain information to the public, by effecting suspension of some accounts on Twitter i.e., www.twitter.com.
In the alternative, petitioner seeks a direction at the hands of this court ‘to modify the Blocking Orders to the extent of Table A of Annexure S to revoke the account level directions and instead identify specific tweets which are violative of Section 69A of the IT Act with reasons.’
Conclusion- No provision in the Act nor in the Website Blocking Rules is pointed out to show that the respondents are under a legal duty to consider the request for review of the Blocking Orders. Thus, grievance in this regard, is not justiciable. If such requests are considered by the respondents, that would be ideal & appreciable, is true.
Held that the impugned orders blocking the tweets/accounts for an indefinite period are unassailable on the doctrine of proportionality.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Petitioner, claiming to be an Intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereafter ‘Act’), is knocking at the doors of Writ Court complaining against certain Blocking Orders issued by the respondents, whereby it is directed to bar access of certain information to the public, by effecting suspension of some accounts on Twitter i.e., www.twitter.com. In the alternative, petitioner seeks a direction at the hands of this court ‘to modify the Blocking Orders to the extent of Table A of Annexure S to revoke the account level directions and instead identify specific tweets which are violative of Section 69A of the IT Act with reasons.’ The respondents vide letter dated 27 June 2022 have warned the petitioner of serious consequences such as withdrawal of protection availing under section 79(1) of the Act and initiation of criminal proceedings as well if these orders are not complied with.
Particulars of the said orders are furnished by the petitioner in a tabular form as under:
