X Corp challenges Karnataka High Court judgment against Twitter; says verdict can have devastating consequences on free speech

X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, has filed an appeal against the Karnataka High Court single-judge verdict dismissing its challenge to blocking orders passed by the Central government between February 2021 and 2022. [X Corp v. Union of India].In a verdict passed on June 30 this year, Justice Krishna S Dixit had also slapped a whopping ₹50 lakh fine on the micro-blogging platform, after finding that it did not give reasons for not complying with the Central government's demands to take down content and block Twitter handles in a timely manner..In its appeal, X Corp has now contended that the single-judge order would permit the Central government to act arbitrarily because it has upheld blocking orders issued without any reasons.“If the Impugned Order were allowed to stand, it would permit Respondents to issue capricious or arbitrary blocking orders without assigning reasons, in violation of Section 69A(1) and the requirements and safeguards recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal. The Impugned Order's holding can lead to devastating consequences, including on users' freedom of speech and expression. Indeed, Respondents themselves recognize that "blocking constitutes a severe action and impacts the freedom of speech and expression," the appeal stated. .X Corp has also questioned the imposition of unjustified and excessive costs on it for filing the writ petition.“The exemplary costs obstruct access to courts and justice by discouraging Appellant and any other intermediary from approaching a writ court, even if it has a genuine and bona fide claim that blocking orders substantively or procedurally violate Section 69A,” the appeal said..Apart from seeking a direction to set aside the single-judge order, X Corp has urged the Court to stay the imposition of costs as interim relief, which are to be paid by August 14 as per the order under challenge. If the appellate bench is unable to decide on this aspect by then, X Corp has requested for a stay on the daily levy of ₹5,000 per day until such decision.The appeal has been filed through Advocate Manu P Kulkarni of Poovayya & Co. Advocates & Solicitors..Other highlights of the appeal filed by X Corp.1. Twitter is entitled to rights under Article 21 of the Constitution: Reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the KS Puttaswamy case, in which the top court had observed that the rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution are “not confined only to citizens but available even to non-citizens, aliens or incorporated bodies even if they are (sic not) incorporated in India, etc." The Court has failed to apply the doctrine of proportionality, which is inherent in Articles 14 and 21 and apply to X Corp/ Twitter. The single-judge has also failed to adhere to the “least restrictive” measure test laid down in the Supreme Court ruling of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India..2. Purposive interpretation of Section 69A, Information Technology Act is incorrect: The single-judge failed to adhere to the plain language of Section 69A(1) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) by holding that blocking orders need not contain reasons. Section 69A (1) has to be literally interpreted, in restrictive terms considering its penal provisions, and not in a purposive manner. The single-judge’s purpose interpretation renders the provision redundant. The single-judge also erred in holding that Section 69A(1) does not require reasons for taking down content to be communicated to Twitter..3. Central government failed to produce reasons for orders to block 1,354 URLS and the Court did not ask for these reasons. There was no factual basis on the record to support the single-judge’s conclusion that 9 blocking orders were "reasoned'. These orders cannot be “reasoned” merely because of areference to Section 69A. They merely stated that "some Twitter URLs that have been found propagating objectionable contents which attract the provisions of section 69A of the IT Act, 2000.” This is wholly insufficient, X Corp has contended..4. The judgment under challenge permits the Central government to act arbitrarily as it upholds blocking orders issued without reasons. The single-judge’s incorrect interpretation of Section 69A(1) allows the blocking of accounts and would also cover future innocuous content posted by those accounts, which is not provided for under Section 69A(1). The plain language of this provision only authorises the blocking of information that already exists. The language of this Section is clear, and the judge was not required to undertake a purposive interpretation. The significance of the IT Act is not a valid legal basis to deviate from the literal interpretation. The single-judge’s decision to hold that Section 69A(1) is “preventive” is incorrect..5. Outdated US case-laws relied on: The order under challenge misstates the laws of the United States, and relies on inapplicable foreign law in preference over Indian law, to justify a purposive interpretation. X Corp has also termed two US caselaws highlighted and relied on by the single judge [Church of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), and United States v. American Trucking Association (1940)] as out-dated and irrelevant. In any event, the High Court should apply and follow the established Indian law precedents that require Section 69A(1) to be interpreted literally, the appeal added..6. Guidelines needed if Section 69A permits account-blocking: The single-judge’s interpretation of Section 69A as permitting account blocking is based on Twitter’s contractual rights under its Terms of Service, instead of the Central government’s statutory powers. If at all Section 69A(1) is to be held as permitting the blocking of entire accounts, the High Court ought to lay down guidelines to limit the Central government’s discretion in this arena, in line with the safeguards laid down in the Shreya Singhal case..7. Imposition of exemplary costs is wholly unjustified and excessive: X Corp has challenged the single-judge’s comment that Twitter’s cause was not as “worthy” as those of “native litigants”. It has also questioned why Twitter was awarded these costs on the ground of filing “voluminous documents” and for taking up time for oral arguments, when the Centre (allegedly) contributed to the piling up of such documents, particularly through the last-minute filing of certain “secret documents” which were not served on Twitter.X Corp adds that it finished its arguments during the course of six half-day hearings without seeking any out-of-turn hearings, whereas the Central government repeatedly sought adjournments and was even admonished for the same.This apart, X Corp has also denied the single-judge’s assertion that its litigation was speculative and that there was “wilful” non-compliance with Indian laws..8. Central government failed to set up any review committee to examine Twitter’s case: The Centre has not produced any material to show that such a committee actually functioned or ever discharged its role. In Twitter’s case, only an inter-ministerial committee under Rule 7 was set up, the appeal contended..On these grounds, among others, X Corp has prayed for the June 30 order to be set aside.