[Delhi Riots] Committee formed by Delhi Assembly to probe social media giants' omissions unconstitutional: Centre, Facebook tell Supreme Court

The Peace and Harmony Committee (Committee) constituted by the Delhi Legislative Assembly to probe the Delhi riots of February 2020 is unconstitutional, both the Central government and Facebook told the Supreme Court on Tuesday ( Ajit Mohan v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi ).

. It was contended by the Centre and the social media giant that the Committee which is examining the role of social media giants like Facebook in failing to curb hate speech which allegedly fueled the riots could not have been constituted by the Delhi Assembly since the Assembly itself does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

. “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, ” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who was representing the Central government submitted. . Mehta said 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.

“When the field is occupied both with respect to law and order and IT, then where do they (Delhi Assembly) get power to examine people, prepare a report and give recommendations,” Mehta demanded.

. The submissions came 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 Committee which sought Mohan’s presence before the panel as part of its inquiry into the Delhi riots.

. Mehta’s submissions were echoed by Senior Counsel Arvind Datar who, appearing for Facebook, submitted that the “very constitution of this Committee was unconstitutional.”

. Datar adverted to Article 239AA(3)(a) as per which Delhi Assembly does not have power to deal with entries 1 and 2 of the State list which relates to public order and police.

. The very constitution of the Committee is in a matter relating to entries 1 and 2, Datar submitted reading out a bulletin of March 2020 which announced the constitution of the Committee.

. “The bulletin was issued to go into law and order issue arising out of communal riots. Entry 1 and 2 which will cover communal riots and disturbance is completely outside the jurisdiction of Delhi Assembly. What has been specifically denied by Constitution cannot be done through a committee. When assembly itself is precluded from doing so, how can it constitute a committee to go into it,” asked Datar. . The Delhi Assembly, he said, does not have power to summon witnesses in relation to a subject in the Union List and they cannot make any committee to go into a subject which is outside their jurisdiction under the Constitution.

Conversely, Parliament also cannot summon witnesses in a matter which is in State list, Datar added.

. The Bench while hearing the matter asked the Centre as to why the Court should go into the constitution of the committee which is an internal matter of the assembly.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said that the issue before the Court is whether such a committee can compel a private person to appear before it

.Facebook cannot be compelled to testify before Delhi Assembly Committee: Salve to Supreme Court . “We don't think we need to look into whether the assembly can constitute such a committee. The issue before us is whether such a committee can compel a private person to appear before it,” remarked Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Both Datar and Mehta concluded their arguments today. Senior Counsel Dr. AM Singhvi will commence submissions on behalf of Delhi Assembly on Wednesday.

. Senior Advocate Harish Salve had earlier argued that Mohan cannot be compelled to appear before the Committee.

[Delhi Riots] Committee formed by Delhi Assembly to probe social media giants' omissions unconstitutional: Centre, Facebook tell Supreme Court

Bar & Bench

Related Stories