Twitter on Monday informed the Delhi High Court that it has appointed a Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) in compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules).

Appearing for the US entity, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya submitted before Justice Rekha Palli that by a letter dated May 28, a GRO has been appointed by Twitter Inc.

The hearing on Monday also saw Justice Palli orally observe that as long as the IT Rules are operational, they must be complied with.

"I am inclined to issue notice, if the rules are there, as long as they are not stayed...they have to follow it. It is very simple, if the rules are there, there is no choice, you have to (comply with it)", she observed.

"Absolutely, there is no question. Without a stay, I have to comply. The Resident Grievance Officer has now been appointed and that appointment happened by a letter of 28th of May. I will place it on affidavit," Senior Advocate Poovayya responded.

The Court was hearing a plea raising grievance that the Twitter GRO's details could not be found when a complaint was sought to be made against certain objectionable tweets by Trinamool Congress Party member and Member of Parliament, Mahua Moitra and Journalist Swati Chaturvedi.

The petitioner is a Twitter user himself. He had moved the Court urging that the Central Government be ordered to direct Twitter to comply with the IT Rules.

"As on the date of filing this petition, the rules were not complied. Subsequently, they have been. I will file it on affiavit", Poovayya told the Court today.

Justice Palli noted that if the Rules have been complied with, the Court could dispose of the matter today. However, Poovayya pointed out that since Twitter Inc was a US-based entity, he would file its stance on an affiadvit.

The Court, therefore, allowed Twitter Inc to file its response and granted the petitioner time to file a rejoinder thereto, before posting the matter next on July 6.

Twitter India was deleted from the array of parties after the Court was informed that the Indian entity did not have a role to play in the present dispute.