Journalist Aarti Tikoo has moved the Delhi High Court against Twitter’s decision to lock her account for allegedly making a Tweet in violation of its Rules on Hateful Conduct [Aarti Tikoo v Union of India and Anr].Tikoo is the founder and editor of The New Indian, a digital news website..In her plea, filed through advocate Mukesh Sharma, Tikoo has argued that on December 14 her brother, Sahil Tikoo, participated in a discussion where he was called an Indian agent by some participants.On the morning of December 15, she put out a Tweet saying that her Srinagar based brother was being threatened by “jihadi terrorists” and asked if they were “sitting ducks waiting to be shot by Islamists”.The plea stated that the manner in which her brother was targeted by some participants was reminiscent of January 1990. However, she was shocked to see that Twitter served her a notice for this Tweet saying it went against their Rules on Hateful Conduct.“That it is further submitted that a lot of Twitter users including political personalities cutting across party lines expressed sympathy with the Petitioner because her Tweet very clearly did not incite violence or hatred against any community. As a matter of fact, the same was an exhortation to the Respondent No.1 (Center Government),” read the petition..The plea further said that word Islamist, used in her Tweet, is a political ideology that has to be distinguished from the religion of Islam.“The latter is a universally recognized religion while the former is an ideology that seeks to remake the world in political, economic and legal terms in the image of what early Islamic society in the 7th century used to be like.” The petition said that the by locking her account, Twitter is siding with Islamist terrorists who “have been the scourge of India’s brave security forces in Kashmir”.“Since the beginning of the insurgency in 1989, countless brave soldiers and security personnel have been martyred in the struggle to preserve India's sovereignty and territorial integrity. In this view of the matter, it is imperative that the impugned aforementioned decision of the Respondent No.2 is quashed forthwith," it was contended. .She therefore said that Twitter’s action violates her rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and demanded that the decision be quashed.