Hashtags, profiles cannot be removed en masse: Six arguments by Twitter against Sameer Wankhede suit

Twitter has sought dismissal of the civil proceedings initiated by the zonal director of NCB, Sameer Wankhede and his wife Kranti Redkar (plaintiffs) seeking permanent injunction against social media companies from putting up false and malicious news/ statements against them..The couple had filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai against social media giants including Google India, Facebook and Twitter, which provide communication and networking services to people to share information online.In the 22-page reply to the notice of motion in the suit, Twitter has submitted that the application by Wankhede is false and frivolous and has, therefore, sought its dismissal in limine.As far as prayer in the application was concerned, Twitter stated that they could not be granted in the manner that the plaintiffs have sought..Twitter in its response, raised the following objections with respect to the suit:.Plaintiffs have failed to show territorial jurisdiction of the CourtTwitter contended that the place of residence of the plaintiffs is not relevant to determine the territorial jurisdiction in any suit. Relying upon provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Twitter stated that the jurisdiction to file the proceedings will arise where the defendants reside or cause of action arises..There are no declaratory reliefs soughtTwitter pointed out that the plaintiffs did not seek for any relief for declaring any content defamatory or in violation of their alleged rights.“An injunction against the publication of defamatory content can only be a consequential relief which can be granted, when there is a declaration that the alleged content is defamatory in the first place,” the response said.Hence, in the absence of the former relief, the latter cannot be granted..Intermediary is not liable for the content hosted on its platformTwitter pointed out that they are entitled to statutory immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act which provides for safe harbour to intermediaries..Suit is not maintainableThe reply said that there is no cause of action against the company as it has no control over the content.“The Plaintiff’s real controversy is against the originator or uploader of the contents against them who have not been arrayed as party(ies) to the Suit and the Notice of Motion,” the reply stated..Prayers are vagueTwitter has stated in its reply that the relief sought suffers from “the vice of casting judicial functions on an intermediary” as an intermediary cannot determine what content is malicious or defamatory but only a judicial authority can.Twitter stated that for taking down of content, an adjudication by a competent court of law on the legality of that content available on a specific URL is required and Twitter will be in a position to remove the content on those specific URLs only upon receiving knowledge of the court order..Hashtags and the profiles cannot be removed en masseThe content specified in the suit and the notice of motion do not contain identified content.For instance, hashtags cannot be removed en masse as they may be used contextually. Also, there cannot be a blanket take down of an account, unless the Court finds that the tweets are defamatory. This is more so because the plaintiffs have failed to make the account holder a party to the lies.