Facebook cannot take refuge under the Central government and claim that it is not obligated to appear before the Peace and Harmony Committee (Committee) constituted by the Delhi Legislative Assembly to examine the Delhi riots of 2020, the Delhi Assembly told the Supreme Court on Wednesday. .Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing the Delhi Assembly also maintained that the Committee proceedings are in-house proceedings and courts generally do not interfere with the same. .He said that law on privileges is uncodified and deliberately so and Facebook cannot choose which committee it wants to appear before and which not to. Accepting such a stand would "be the death knell of committees working in Parliament," he added.."We have someone here who claims to be a Republic of Facebook in Republic of India. One cannot say they will appear before European committee and not here because the subject does not suit us. Facebook being a corporate entity cannot take refuge under Centre," Singhvi submitted..Such a stand, Singhvi claimed, is against the established norm where a committee has the power to summon and enforce presence of an individual including a corporation like Facebook."Facebook questioning the 70 year wisdom is bizarre. The law of reading entry is not to nitpick," he said. .Singhvi was responding to the submissions by Facebook and the Central government that the Committee which is examining the role of social media giants like Facebook in failing to curb hate speech which allegedly fueled the Delhi riots, could not have been constituted by the Delhi Assembly since the Assembly itself does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had, on behalf of the Central government, said on Tuesday that lack of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and if the Committee is not held unconstitutional, then other States will also start interfering with subjects which are not within their domain under the garb of cooperative federalism..“Information Technology and law relating to intermediaries fall within the domain of Parliament and Delhi Assembly or for that matter no assembly has jurisdiction over it,” Mehta had said. .Mehta’s submissions were echoed by Senior Counsel Arvind Datar who, appearing for Facebook, had submitted that the “very constitution of this Committee was unconstitutional.”.The submissions were made in a plea by Facebook India and its Vice President and Managing Director, Ajit Mohan challenging the September 10 and September 18 notices issued by the Peace and Harmony Committee which sought Mohan’s presence before the panel as part of its inquiry into the Delhi riots..The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy stated on Wednesday that Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing Mohan, had made it clear that he would not appear before the Committee..To this Senior Advocate Abhishekh Manu Singhvi replied that a fresh notice will be issued and any other officer from Facebook too could appear before the Committee. .Role of FB in Delhi Riots: Supreme Court hears Facebook India head's challenge to Delhi Assembly summons [LIVE UPDATES] ."We don't have a mesmerized tie up with Mohan. Of course we don't want the lowest grade person but someone responsible. Any senior, responsible and competent person from Facebook can appears in person before the committee with our powers intact. We will be issuing a fresh notice," he said. .[Delhi Riots] Committee formed by Delhi Assembly to probe social media giants' omissions unconstitutional: Centre, Facebook tell Supreme Court .Singhvi made out a case that Parliament consciously did not codify the law of privilege as it wanted to keep it "untramelled.".Committee proceedings are house proceedings. Normally this Court does not look into house proceedings," Singhvi maintained.The hearing will continue on Thursday.