[Exclusive] Account-level blocking violates rights of users; blocking of 39 URLs challenged: Why Twitter has moved the Karnataka High Court

As reported earlier, Twitter has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging blocking orders issued by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY)..Bar & Bench has accessed the petition filed by the social media giant before the High Court. .The ten blocking orders in question, which were issued between February 2021 and February 2022, directed Twitter to block certain information from access to the public, and to suspend several accounts. The blocking orders issued by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) have been submitted to the High Court via sealed covers marked as annexures A to K. .In its petition filed before the High Court, Twitter has argued that account-level blocking is a disproportionate measure and violates the rights of users under the Constitution..The blocking orders.Out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, Twitter has challenged the blocking of only 39 URLs..Pursuant to these blocking orders, the Designated Officer of the MEITY on June 4 and 6 this year, sent show cause notices to Twitter asking it to explain why action should not be taken against it. Twitter's Compliance Officer appeared before the Designated Officer and stated that the content and accounts ordered to be blocked, apart from those on which action was taken, did not fall under the grounds provided under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act). Thus, MEITY was asked to reconsider and withdraw the notices sent to Twitter..Section 69A empowers the Central government to direct an intermediary like Twitter to block access to information online in the interests of:i) sovereignty and integrity of India,ii) defence of India,iii) security of the State,iv) friendly relations with foreign States,v) public order,vi) preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence.Thereafter, another notice was sent on June 27, 2022 warning Twitter that significant consequences under the IT Act would prevail, including the loss of its intermediary protections under Section 79 of the Act, if the content was not blocked. However, when the social media platform reiterated that it was not in violation of the IT Act, the Designated Officer called for a meeting with its Compliance Officer. During this meeting, MEITY agreed to withdraw the order calling for the blocking of 10 account-level URLs. It also sent an updated list of 27 URLs to be blocked by Twitter.On July 4, MEITY sent a letter to Twitter saying that it was reconsidering the June 27 notice and would confirm the next course of action shortly..Meanwhile, Twitter moved the Karnataka High Court challenging the blocking orders..The petition also states that the orders in question are manifestly arbitrary, and procedurally and substantively not in consonance with Section 69A of the IT Act. Further, they fail to comply with the procedures and safeguards prescribed by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules).Twitter has argued that the direction to block entire accounts falls afoul of Section 69A of the IT Act. The ambit of 'information' that may be blocked under this provision extends only to blocking information that is available and does not extend to preventing information from being generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted, the plea states."...Blocking Orders to withhold access to the entire account cannot be issued without providing cogent reasons as to why such account level blocking in necessary or expedient...account level blocking is a disproportionate measure and violates rights of users under the Constitution.".Another argument made is that MEITY has not provided a notice to the originator of the content under Rule 8(1) of the Blocking Rules, as was mandated by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India.As far as blocking of URLs is concerned, Twitter has contended that the blocking orders do not provide proper reasons as to why the content is liable to be blocked on the narrow grounds under Section 69A. Procedural safeguards under the Blocking Rules have not been followed in these cases as well, Twitter argued..Twitter's Prayer.On these grounds, among others, Twitter has prayed that the ten blocking orders be quashed.Alternatively, it has been prayed that the orders be modified to revoke the account-level directions, and instead specify tweets which are violative of Section 69A of the IT Act..Twitter's petition was filed through Advocate Manu Kulkarni of Poovayya & Co.