The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday quizzed the Uttar Pradesh Police on whether Twitter India has power to take down content transmitted through the social media platform or whether the same is reserved with parent company, Twitter Inc, which is based out of the United States..Pertinent questions on Twitter India's powers as regards content regulation were posed by the Court while hearing a plea by Twitter India head, Manish Maheshwari challenging the notice issued to him by UP Police for questioning him in relation to the Ghaziabad attack video.."What is the allegation against Twitter India? Is it capable of removing the content? How does complainant connect Twitter India to this? Was a preliminary investigation undertaken to ascertain whether Twitter India was capable of taking down the content?" a Bench of Justice G Narendar asked UP Police. The query to UP Police came after Maheshwari, through Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, told the Court that Twitter India and its employees do not have control over the data of Twitter users."Twitter India or its employees do not control any of the data of users of Twitter. Therefore, I would not be in a position to provide information," it was submitted by Nagesh. .The Court then stated the platform is being run by Twitter and not Twitter India, which might not be liable for content uploaded on Twitter."Unless you can show Maheshwari was the one who uploaded the content or did not take it down, he is nobody," the Court said.The Court was also not impressed with the response of the UP Police which said that it does not have information on the responsibilities and liabilities of Twitter India."Investigation is in initial stages, so we don't have this information," counsel for UP Police, Advocate Prasanna Kumar stated.The Court noted that Articles of Association are available on public domain."Are Articles of Association putting forth objectives and activities of the company not accessible to you? This is information available in the public domain. If IO says that information can only be extracted through interrogation, I don't know what to say. You do not want to investigate this," the Court said.Twitter India and Twitter are two different entities and should not be mixed up, the Court added..Maheshwari had moved the High Court challenging the notice issued to him under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)This was pursuant to an FIR registered against Twitter and others in the backdrop of a video wherein an elderly Muslim man was asked to shave his beard and was forced to chant "Vande Mataram" and "Jai Shri Ram".The Uttar Pradesh Police had ruled out any "communal angle" and said that Sufi Abdul Samad, the elderly man, was attacked by six men who were unhappy over the tabeez (amulets) he had sold them.The FIR stated that the accused circulated a video of the incident on their Twitter handles without checking its authenticity, and that they gave the video a communal angle and intended to incite communal hatred between religious communities.Maheshwari was issued a notice under Section 41A and directed by the UP Police to appear before Loni Border Police Station as part of the investigation into the Ghaziabad video issue.He then moved the Karnataka High Court which had granted him interim protection..[BREAKING] Karnataka High Court grants interim protection to Twitter MD Manish Maheshwari in FIR filed by UP Police.On Tueday, Kumar, appearing for UP Police, questioned the High Court's jurisdiction to hear the petition filed by Maheshwari.It said that the First Information Report (FIR) was registered in Ghazaiabad and notices were issued to Maheshwari at Twitter's Delhi and Mumbai offices. "Neither whole nor part of cause of action arises in jurisdiction of this (Karnataka) High Court," Kumar said. .Nagesh rebutted the argument, saying,"For a moment, it is not disputed that I am a resident of Bangalore. It is also not disputed that the establishment of ninth accused (Twitter India) is in Bangalore. We are not in Ghaziabad. Twitter India office is at RMZ Infinity, Bangalore. So jurisdiction is of Karnataka High Court.".The UP Police told the High Court that all it wanted to know was who would be the person in charge to redress grievances under the Information Technology Rules, 2021."All that UP Police wants to know if who is the in-charge of Twitter in India. If they had disclosed this, none of this would have happened," Kumar contended. Pertinently, it was submitted that such Grievance Officer has to be based out of India. "IT Rules, 2021 require that Grievance Officer has to be based in India. It is their responsibility to disclose the same," it was argued. It was also submitted that Mohammed Zubair, founder of Alt News had appeared before it for probe and had answered their queries..Ghaziabad attack video: Karnataka High Court allows Mohammed Zubair to withdraw transit anticipatory bail plea after UP Police records statement.Nagesh then submitted that UP Police did not have jurisdiction to issue notice to Maheshwari under Section 160 CrPC, while, maintaining that Twitter India does not control data of Twitter users. "Interaction is between user and Twitter, which is based in San Francisco, USA. Therefore, I would not be in a position to provide information," it was submitted. Despite this fact, Nagesh told the Court, Maheshwari was willing to co-operate over video conference."But still they do not want me to appear on video, probably with some ulterior motive. In the next 24 hours, I am ready to appear on video or physically. But they must give an undertaking to this Court that they will not lay a hand upon me," he said..The Senior Counsel also pointed out that the FIR does not name provisions of the IT Rules, 2021. The only provisions invoked were Sections 153 (giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), he said.In any case, the provisions of the Information Technology Act would not apply to Twitter India, which he claimed was not an intermediary as defined under the Act..The matter will be heard again on Wednesday.