An intermediary cannot determine whether content on its platform is lawful..

Case: Aditya Singh Deshwal v. Union of India & Ors

Court: Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.

Twitter informed the Delhi High Court that being an intermediary, it cannot determine whether content on its platform is lawful until it has been brought to actual knowledge by courts or government bodies. It further said that actual knowledge has been interpreted by the Top Court in the Shreya Singhal case to mean either a judicial court order and/or a notification by the government.

The social media giant stated that they can remove other way content if it violates the terms of service. This contractual right remains unfettered by the enactment of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [IT Rules 2021].

In addition, the Delhi High Court was already considering whether or not a writ petition against Twitter could be maintained, and the Bench had already part-heard the matter.

Aditya Deshwal filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in response, pointing out that several objectionable posts were created via the account Atheist Republic, and Twitter has failed to suspend the account or remove the offending content despite several complaints.

In March, the High Court expressed displeasure with Twitter's conduct and asked the platform why it did not take action and suspend accounts that posted ‘blasphemous’ and objectionable content about Hindu gods and goddesses when even former US President Donald Trump's account had been suspended. However, the social media giant questioned the maintainability of a writ petition, arguing that it is not a ‘State’ as defined under Article 12 of the Indian constitution.