The Karnataka High Court today held that the petition challenging the notice issued to Twitter's Manish Maheshwari under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the Uttar Pradesh Police in relation to the Ghaziabad assault video is maintainable..Justice G Narendar of the High Court held that the Section 41A notice was resorted to as an arm-twisting method after Maheshwari did not respond to the initial notice sent to him under Section 160 CrPC..The Court also recorded,"Provisions of the statute cannot be permitted to become tools of harassment. Respondent (UP Police) has not placed even an iota of material to demonstrate even prima facie involvement of the petitioner (Maheshwari).".While pointing out the mala fides with which the Section 41A was issued, the Court made it clear that the notice to Maheshwari shall be treated as a notice under Section 160 CrPC. He was further directed to cooperate with the investigation in the case..Justice Narendar took a dim view of UP Police's actions, noting,"There was not only failure of respondent (UP Police) to secure information that is available in the public domain, but the ominous silence maintained on the merits of the matter and an attempt to coax the Court to scrap the petition on jurisdiction...".The Court also observed that Twitter India is an independent entity controlled by Twitter International Company, which is in Ireland, and Twitter Netherlands BV, and that it has no control over content on the social media platform. The content, the Court noted, was controlled by Twitter Inc, which is based in USA..The marathon pronouncement took over five hours, spread across two days..Maheshwari had moved the High Court challenging the notice issued to him under Section 41A CrPC. This was pursuant to an FIR registered against Twitter and others in the backdrop of tweets on 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, 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 from arrest..The matter was reserved for orders two weeks ago. The verdict was scheduled for pronouncement last week, but was deferred after the judge said that he wanted to go through the cited precedents once again so that there are no errors in the verdict. The pronouncement was deferred again this Tuesday. On Thursday, Justice Narendar pronounced half the verdict and adjourned the matter..Twitter Inc does not hold a single share in Twitter India: Counsel for Manish Maheshwari to Karnataka High Court.Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for Twitter India employee Manish Maheshwari, had submitted that his client did not want to hamper the investigation being carried out by the Uttar Pradesh Police..He had also pointed out that Maheshwari had offered to appear on video to answer any questions the police may have, but the same was refused..How many times should he say that he is not MD of Twitter? Karnataka High Court reserves order in Manish Maheshwari plea against UP Police notice.Nagesh had also pointed out that Twitter Inc, which controls the content on the platform, does not own a single share in Twitter India..Twitter Inc does not hold a single share in Twitter India: Counsel for Manish Maheshwari to Karnataka High Court.Advocate Prasanna Kumar appear on behalf of UP Police.