X Corp/ Twitter case: Karnataka High Court asks whether government can withhold reasons for its blocking orders

Can the government withhold its reasons for blocking internet content when the Supreme Court has indicated that such blocking orders are open to being challenged in courts, the Karnataka High Court asked the Central government on Wednesday.,.Justices G Narendar and Vijaykumar A Patil posed the query while hearing X Corp's appeal against a single-judge's June 30 judgment that had dismissed X Corp's challenge to orders issued by the Indian government between 2021-22 to block certain posts and accounts. .The Court today noted that the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case had acknowledged that it is often debatable whether internet content is against public interest or national security.As such, the Court questioned whether the government could refrain from communicating reasons when internet content is sought to be blocked on such grounds."Whether the contents are against national security, public interest is a debatable issue, a debatable fact. So, recognising that in Shreya Singhal case, the Supreme Court has said it (blocking order) is open for challenge. When the (Supreme) Court has said it is open for challenge, how can single-judge hold reasons cannot be communicated?" Justice Narendar orally remarked..Pertinently, in the June 30 judgment under challenge, the single-judge had held that the Central government's omission to communicate reasons to Twitter (as it was known then) for the blocking demands did not invalidate such blocking orders. .Appearing for X Corp, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya asserted that reasons must be part of the blocking order. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act was upheld by Supreme Court in the Shreya Singal case on the ground that when an order is passed, it should be passed with reasons to enable a party to challenge it, he underscored."Reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a petition under Article 226 ... How can the (single-judge of the) High Court then say that Section 69A of the IT Act does not require communication of reasons?" he argued..Appearing for the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), Senior Counsel R Sankaranarayanan countered that X Corp cannot say it was not aware of why the blocking orders were issued. "I would be able to convince the Court that reasons are known to him (X Corp), but not communicated in the manner he wants ... When I sent notice, he (X Corp/ Twitter) could have informed the account user, he could have dealt with him," Sankaranarayanan contended. .He also informed the Court that the would not be reconsidering the blocking orders as suggested by X Corp and the Court in an earlier hearing."They (MEITY) say there is no change of circumstances for them to consider it again," Sankaranarayanan said. .He submitted that the Court could hear the writ appeal and finally decide on the matter. He also requested that the case be adjourned till November 9th or 10th. The hearing ended on a lighter note, when the senior counsel disclosed why he was seeking the adjournment. "Why I am making this request milord is for two months I am going away to visit my daughter. I do not want the matter to be delayed, that is the only reason," Sankaranarayanan said."I would not want to come between him and his daughter. I would support that he should go," Poovayya chimed in. "Thank you, Mr Sajan," Sankaranarayanan replied. .The Court then proceeded to list the case for hearing on November 9. .[Read live coverage of the hearing today]