Delhi High Court issues notice to Twitter, Meta in plea challenging suspension of right-wing handle 'Wokeflix'

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Twitter, Meta Platforms (parent company of Instagram) and the Central government on a petition challenging the decision of these social media intermediaries to disable/suspend the account of right-wing political satire handle, Wokeflix [Wokeflix through Megha Chaubey v. Union of India and Ors]..Notice was issued by Justice V Kameswar Rao, who gave the respondents two weeks to file their replies..In its plea filed through Advocate Mukesh Sharma and argued by Advocate Raghav Awasthi, Wokeflix argued that on November 28, 2021, Instagram removed one of its stories. Later that day, it even disabled the handle on the ground that it contained hate speech.“Whereas, it is so strange that in both of the aforesaid cases, whether it be removal of story or disabling of account, it was done without any prior notification or affording any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner,” the petition argued.The Instagram account was restored a few days later..The plea stated that a similar decision was taken by Twitter on March 1, 2022, when the handle was suspended without affording any opportunity of hearing.“It is most humbly submitted that the Respondents No.2 & 3 (Meta Platform and Twitter) perform a public function and also enjoy a virtual duopoly when it comes to dissemination of information at the behest of the Respondent No.1 on the medium of the internet… The aforesaid actions of the Respondents No.2 & 3 are violative of various provisions of the Constitution of India including Articles 14, 19 and 21 inasmuch as it is an impairment of the right to free speech and is arbitrary. Furthermore, there is no provision under which content can be edited or modified before transmission suo-motu by an intermediary like the Respondents No.2 & 3,” the plea said.Twitter and Meta qualify as ‘State’ for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution and writs can be issued to them under Article 226, the plea contended..Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing for Twitter, questioned the maintainability of the petition qua the intermediaries. He argued that social media intermediaries cannot be counted as an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12..The High Court asked Poovayya to file a response, including on the maintainability of the petition, and listed the case for further hearing on March 30, when similar matters will be heard.