Role of FB in Delhi Riots: Supreme Court hears Facebook India head's challenge to Delhi Assembly summons [LIVE UPDATES]

The Supreme Court is hearing a petition by Ajit Mohan, head of Facebook India challenging summons issued by a Delhi Government panel querying him on the role of the social networking portal in the Delhi Riots..After Senior Advocate Harish Salve (for Mohan) Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (appearing for the Central Government) and Senior Advocate Arvind Datar (for Facebook) concluded their submissions in the matter, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi is making submissions on behalf of the Delhi Government. .Read an account of yesterday's hearing below:.[Delhi Riots] Committee formed by Delhi Assembly to probe social media giants' omissions unconstitutional: Centre, Facebook tell Supreme Court .Live updates of the hearing today feature here. .Dr AM Singhvi seeks to make some prefatory submissions for Delhi Legislative Assembly, refers to how other counsels have taken some number of hours .Justice Kaul: Seven and a half hours .Court adds that it would say, "both orally and in writing, it is more difficult to say things briefly.".It would be more impact if things were said briefly, Court orally observes..Singhvi argues that the matter is premature, that there is virtually no cause of action. There has only been summons. There is no attendance taken, questions not asked, answers not seen, he adds. .Singhvi: Your Lordships are asked to give an advance ruling, an advisory opinion etc. .A premature, abstract, advance ruling is sought for, he argues. There is no active issue, he says..Singhvi: Barring...exceptional cases, your Lordships are told that while Facebook can appear before Parliament, it cannot appear before Assembly..Court says that there are 3 issues: ... some part of your problem is the manner in which notice was issued.. to some extent, the problem is... even through a narrow compass, there are areas in the domain of State or under Centre....Court: Second issue is that if you are holding an inquiry, can you compel a person to come before... that is an important aspect .Court: Thirdly, can that person say, "you may be wanting, I don't want to."... whether he can say this or not is the argument point. .The most crucial issue is, suppose you give appropriate notice, withdraw earlier notice - then according to your submission, is there an option to them to come and say they don't want to answer, Court asks. .Singhvi: The answer is no, but I have to make that (submission) good.Matter to resume in some time. Senior counsel AM Singhvi expected to join back after disconnecting from the virtual hearing due to technical issues..Justice Kaul: If you withdrawing the notices issued and substitute with another notice then you can't have advance ruling on notice. Then you can withdraw them too and issue fresh notice..Justice Kaul: But will that notice be within law and order subject? Our view is that you withdraw notices and file fresh one and then we can look into it. We can't give an advance ruling. The choice is yours..Senior Advocate Singhvi: By lunch, Court Master can have requisite documents. Petitioners are arguing for an advance ruling. I have a right that if Mohan denies then I can refer it to the speaker and the privileges committee can look into it..Justice Kaul: We can either proceed on the basis of these notices or proceed on the basis of your withdrawal and issue fresh notices. Senior Advocate Salve has argued on a wider basis. We can either narrow it down or hear it on the basis of earlier submissions.Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan: That kind of notice is a familiar notice for the Parliament and all state assemblies. That you follow summons or if privilege committee looks into it. When Parliament sent a notice, the etiquette to follow was also laid down.Senior Advocate Dhavan: The committee has followed the same format of notice. The foot note of the first notice was so damaging that it goes into the heart of the issue. .Senior Advocate Harish Salve: My client will not go. We cannot get this deferred by saying a new notice will be issued.Justice Kaul: Your stand has been you will not go and will not speak. But now their stand on notice is something that they will take a call. .Court: Your assembly is different than a state assembly. Whatever powers conferred you have or what is not there you don't have. Mr Dhavan will argue on the constitutional bonhomie.Dr Singhvi: Approach of petitioners if accepted will mean the death knell of committee working in the Parliament. Real working that happens in the committee is amazingly productive and coordinated.Dr Singhvi: A proposal was made to have cameras in committee meetings. It was decided not to have a camera inside committee working as it would hamper the working of the committee. Another fallacious aspect was some committee they will go to and some they won't..Dr Singhvi: There is one subject committee, one is select committee and the third is under general purpose committee head. We are happy if Facebook is represented by number 1 to number 20 man.Justice Kaul: Mr Salve said by issuing notice to number 1, you are compelling Mohan to come and not someone else from Facebook.Singhvi: That's a distortion of fact We don't have a mesmerized tie up with Mohan. Ofcourse we don't want the lowest grade person but someone respinsible.Singhvi: My notice was never objected to apart from Mr Salve's oral submissions .Justice Kaul: Mr Salve said Mohan cannot be compelled and no oath can be forced. Secondly no notice was issued to Facebook.Singhvi: I have never said only Mr Mohan should appear.Justice Kaul: We are noting this then that you are open to others appearing too .Dr Singhvi: Senior, responsible and competent person from Facebook appears in person before the committee with our powers intact. We will be issuing a fresh notice.Dr Singhvi: Did Mr Mohan say that he will send anyone else other than the Vice President? The petitioner is on a constitutional high horse as of now.Matter to resume post lunch. .Hearing resumes..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi: Choice of going before which committee is for court to decide or legislature to create. It's as if committee headed by Raghav Chadha is a non-legislative committee. There is lack of respect and deference for a legislative organ.Singhvi: There is an IT act and Facebook says its an intermediary and either sender or receiver is guilty. This is the worst barrage of arguments and prior interpretation of IT Act. When you make it a wide canvas, the casualty is the specifics.Singhvi: These grand flights of jurisprudence advanced on past several days is based on per se lack of power. All this is shadow boxing being done. There is or is not a press conference. The language of the conference is X Y Z..Singhvi: Certainly no corporate entity and none of its officials would be unready to come before a committee unless the centre supports this. It's undeniable that issues of riots etc in Delhi was the upper most issue..Singhvi: If Delhi discusses it even if Central govt does not agree then a corporate entity cannot take refuge under Centre. Committee proceedings are house proceedings. Normally this Court does not look into house proceedings..Justice Kaul: Fundamental thing is either Court will get into or it will not .Singhvi: Summons are issued and no steps are taken and you take a level that fundamental rights are violated. How things are conflated..Dr Singhvi: Forming the committee in March and the two documents of terms of reference is not challenged. .Justice Kaul: They only want the summons issued to be quashed..Singhvi: Facebook has attended and answered all matters of question before a committee of concern and here you do not appear. Unless they rule out our jurisdiction on the basis of Atomic Energy like subjects, such avoiding cannot happen.Singhvi: We have someone here who claims to be a Republic of Facebook in Republic of India. Their stand is against the established norm where a committee has the power to summon and enforce presence of an individual including a corporation.Singhvi: Whenever a committee calls someone a committee, things can be said which are not to the liking of many and could be defamatory. There is that protection. Parliament has consciously not codified its privileges..Singhvi: This is because Parliament believes its powers are not untramelled. In Keshavananda Bharti, Justice Khanna could have codified the basic structure. Later it was asked that topics like secularism etc to be basic structure..Singhvi: This is because you believed that such things cannot be kept watertight. .Justice Kaul: So you are saying not to codify .Singhvi: Yes, codification will make it ajusticiable. That's my personal view.Dr Singhvi: Facebook questioning the 70 year wisdom is bizarre. The law of reading entry is not to nitpick. It is not to say whether 90 percent is covered and 10 percent not there. How can entry 39 is contrary to basic structure?.Justice Kaul: The argument put forth is Constitution envisages power but carves out exceptions. .Singhvi: Despite barring A,B,C , list 2 applies to me. When did my lord say that I cannot summon a private corporation?.Singhvi: Specific exclusion of 1,2, and 18, it means that all other provisions are applicable to Delhi. Entry 39 is there for us. Committee has the power to take evidence on oath..Justice Kaul: All of the rules submitted are for summoning witnesses. Are they administered oath? .Singhvi: Yes, deposition is to the organ of the Legislature. They are not used against the parties. But 99 percent cases oath is administered..Singhvi: No one can arrest you for despising before the committee. These are all meant to prepare a report. Constitution bench judgment had held that Delhi has hold over all subjects in State list except the ones mentioned..Singhvi: The committee can call collect evidence and statements. Giving powers without exercising it runs the powers impotent. Here a person challenged summons without a privilege notice.Singhvi: I am not arguing xenophobia, I am arguing on principles. One cannot say they will appear before European committee and not here because the subject does not suit us. Nothing is argued by them apart from jurisprudential heights.Dr Singhvi: Please refer to the print out .Justice Kaul: These are violation of environmental norms by printing so much!.Justice Kaul: The deterrent is two volumes.. .Senior Advocate Singhvi: The thing is these are judgments.. 6 judgments in two volumes .Justice Kaul: I don't want to say anything here. Unlike US or England, if a verdict is not cited in detail then its said that a verdict is not appreciated.Singhvi: No difference between Delhi or Madhya Pradesh assembly.. it's a full assembly... it's called truncated because it does not cover the three subjects in the list. That's all.Dr Singhvi elaborates on Article 239 AA of the Indian Constitution..Justice Dinesh Maheshwari states that there is internet disruption near Tughlak road that's why Justice Kaul's courtroom is not visible..Justice Maheshwari informs MTNL is working on it.Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta: Even in Akbar Road .Matter adjourned for tomorrow.

Role of FB in Delhi Riots: Supreme Court hears Facebook India head's challenge to Delhi Assembly summons [LIVE UPDATES]

Related Stories