Karnataka HC dismisses Twitter petition challenging Centre's blocking orders; imposes ₹50 lakh cost

The High Court of Karnataka on June 30, 2023, dismissed a petition filed by Twitter Inc., challenging several blocking and take-down orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, saying the company’s plea was devoid of merits.

The High Court of Karnataka on June 30, 2023, dismissed a petition filed by Twitter Inc., challenging several blocking and take-down orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, saying the company's plea was devoid of merits.

The single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit, which dictated the operative portion of the judgment, also imposed a cost of ₹50 lakh on Twitter and ordered it to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within 45 days.

Reading the operative portion, the High Court said, "In the above circumstances this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and accordingly it is. Petitioner is levied with an exemplary cost of ₹50 lakh payable to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru, within 45 days. If delay is brooked, it attracts an additional levy of ₹5,000 per day."

"I am convinced with contention of the Centre that they have powers to block tweets and block accounts," the judge said while dismissing Twitter's petition.

The Court said that the judgment framed eight questions and only one of them; the locus standi to file the petition was answered in favour of Twitter while the rest of the questions have been answered against it. This includes the plea of Twitter to issue guidelines for exercise of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

Citing the judgment, the judge said, "I have framed as many as eight questions. The first question is as to the locus standi which I have answered in your favour. The second question is whether powers under Section 69A are tweet-specific or it extends to closure of accounts also. The third one is non-communication of reasons; I have held against you."

"Next, no nexus between the reasons and grounds on which blocking can be done. That I have held against you. Then, no opportunity of hearing notice etc., that also I have held against you as you have participated in the hearings and have admitted in your plea. Then on the proportionality, whether the blocking should be period specific or they can indefinitely block. These aspects also I have held against you," the judge said.