Why no action against accounts posting objectionable content about Hindu gods and goddesses? Delhi High Court to Twitter

The Delhi High Court on Monday asked social media platform Twitter why it was not taking action and suspending accounts which post ‘blasphemous’ and objectionable content about Hindu gods and goddesses, when even account of former United States President Donald Trump was suspended [Aditya Singh Deshwal v Union of India and Ors]..A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla said that it appeared as if the micro-blogging platform resorted to harsh steps only if it (Twitter) felt sensitive about a post or information and would not take any action if people of other regions and ethnicities felt offended by some content. “It is ultimately boiling down to this; if you feel sensitive you will block and you do not feel sensitive about the other ethnicities or people of other regions. If the same kind of thing was done against other religions you would have been more serious,” ACJ Sanghi said. The Court, therefore, directed Twitter to file responses explaining its policy regarding permanently block an account on its platform. The Court also directed the Central government to file a counter affidavit and place on record the standard operating procedure (SOP) with Twitter relating to blocking access to an account or information..The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by advocate Aditya Deshwal arguing that several objectionable posts were being made through a Twitter handle named Atheist Republic and despite several complaints Twitter has neither suspended the account nor taken down the offending content.The High Court had in November last year also expressed its displeasure on Twitter’s conduct and directed the micro-blogging site to take down four posts..Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for Twitter, informed that pursuant to the Court’s previous orders, the objectionable material has been taken down and police in some states have also registered FIRs in the matter.Luthra submitted that permanent blocking of an account can be done only following a court order to the same effect as per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal case.“I am not for a moment defending the act. It has nothing to do with twitter. They have posted a link through their handle. The underlying material is not on twitter the only thing that was on twitter was the link to the website. We have removed that as well… The mandate in the Shreya Singhal judgment is that I have to comply with lawful orders which I am happy to do. If they (petitioner) want to revisit the judgment they should lay a challenge to that,” Luthra submitted..However, Deshwal said that the new Information Technology Rules, 2021 put an onus on the social media intermediaries like Twitter and Facebook to curate and remove content that is offensive and goes against the rules.“The submission that social media intermediaries can act only after a court order is completely wrong. The new IT Rules give a free hand to social media intermediaries to regulate their content. As far as my case is concerned this Atheist Republic is a habitual offender. Armin Navabi is the founder of this account and he is mocking even the proceedings. They are circulating blasphemous content. They may be atheists but they cannot ridicule other religions,” he said..Advocate Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, appearing for the Central government, told the court that there is an SOP between Centre and Twitter for blocking of accounts and that if more than five messages in a 60-day period are found to be violating norms, the account can be suspended..Meanwhile, advocate Vrinda Bhandari appearing for Atheist Republic, said that they have not been heard in the matter.She submitted that the Shreya Singhal judgment is the law of the land and the petitioner cannot say that it cannot apply just because new IT Rules have been introduced.“We are not contesting the tweets which have been taken down but blocking accounts is a very strong action. We should be heard before that. Please see the blocking rules. It says the party whose content is to be taken down should be heard as well. I am only saying blocking should not be ordered. I am willing to comply with the order,” she submitted..The Court then proceeded to arraign Atheist Republic as respondent in the case and issued notice to it. Bhandari was asked to file an affidavit detailing the Atheist Republic’s status regarding its constitution, location and whether it has any business in India and if any of its authorised officers or representatives are in India.The Bench also recorded her undertaking that all offending material already removed or directed to be removed from its account will not be uploaded till the matter is decided by the court.The matter will be heard next on September 6.