Can An International Entity Can Approach A Writ Court?- Karnataka HC To Hear Twitter's Appeal Against The Blocking Orders Issued By The Centre

During the hearing of Twitter's appeal against the blocking orders issued by the Central government, the Karnataka High Court raised a question about whether an international entity can approach a writ court. Advocate Manu Kulkarni, representing Twitter, stated that Article 226 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction of High Courts) can be invoked for any violation, and there is no restriction on Twitter approaching the court.

In addition, it was pointed out that the social media platform had no other effective option than to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Kulkarni emphasized the significance of the government providing reasons in cases like these. By providing reasons for blocking orders and other actions, parties would be aware of how to challenge them before a higher court and it would discourage arbitrary action.

The Court postponed the hearing until Wednesday and requested the parties to present international jurisprudence on how courts in other countries handle the recording of reasons.

The Central government of India issued blocking orders to Twitter between February 2021 and February 2022, directing the social media platform to block certain information and suspend several accounts. Twitter has challenged the blocking of only 39 URLs out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets.

The Central government argued in the Karnataka HC that since Twitter is a foreign entity and the blocking orders were not arbitrary, the company could not claim fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. The government also claimed that Twitter could not speak on behalf of its account holders and had no right to challenge the blocking orders.

On the other hand, Twitter argued that blocking orders should contain reasons, and general orders calling for the blocking of social media accounts were not empowered by the Centre. Twitter contended that account-level blocking violated users' constitutional rights, and the orders in question were arbitrary and not in compliance with Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules. Twitter further argued that the direction to block entire accounts went against Section 69A of the IT Act.

The Central government argued that the orders to block specific Twitter accounts were issued in the interest of national and public safety to prevent incidents of lynching and mob violence in response to the plea.