Pre-cum-Mains GS Foundation Program for UPSC 2026 | Starting from 14th Nov. 2024 Click Here for more information
Source: This post is based on the article “Let Them Think”, published in The Times of India on 5th July, 2023.
Syllabus topic: GS Paper 2, Government Policies for various sectors
News: The article discusses the recent rejection by the Karnataka High Court of a petition by Twitter, Inc., which challenged the validity of the Union government’s blocking orders.
Read More about the case– A case of unchecked power to restrict e-free speech
The court ruled that Twitter, as a foreign entity, could not invoke the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression on behalf of its users.
It also imposed a fine of ₹50 lakh on Twitter for indulging in “speculative litigation” despite not complying with the blocking orders for a long period.
Court refused to entertain all arguments based on:
- The absence of notice to users and
- Lack of proportionality involved in large-scale suspension of accounts and posts on few topics.
What are the issues reported by the author with the judgment?
The court’s decision will potentially encourage account-level blocking rather than the removal of specific tweets, links, or URLs deemed harmful to public order or national security.
It will have significant implications for freedom of speech and expression in India, particularly in the context of social media platforms.
It also raises questions about the rights and obligations of large media companies in relation to user-generated content. A definitive verdict from the Supreme Court may be needed to clarify these issues.
What should be done?
Laws in most countries allow intermediaries such as social media platforms and Internet service providers to remove any offending content.
Democracies should formulate policies and regulations rooted in fairness and natural justice.
Government should avoid imposing undue restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
In Shreya Singhal case (2015), Section 69A of the IT Act was upheld by the Supreme Court, because, the section provides adequate procedural safeguards.
