The Indian government's decision to block the X account of hate-crime tracker ‘Hindutva Watch' (@HindutvaWatchIn) was unjustified and disproportionate, social media giant X (formerly Twitter) has told the Delhi High Court [Raqib Hameed v. Union of India].
The submission was made in a reply filed by X to a petition by Kashmiri Journalist, Raqib Hameed who has challenged the blocking of the Hindutva Watch's X account (which Hameed operates).
In this response to this petition, X disclosed that it had objected to the Indian government's proposal to block the account, but that the government went on to issue the blocking order all the same.
X added that it is willing to restore the @HindutvaWatchIn account if the Court orders for it.
However, it also asserted that Hameed's writ petition is not maintainable against X since the platform is merely an intermediary and not part of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.
"It is admitted that Respondent No. 1’s (Union of India) blocking of the Petitioner’s (Hindutva Watch founder) entire social media accounts on the basis of certain alleged offending posts is contrary to Section 69A of the IT Act, disproportionate, and exceeds the limits prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution … It is admitted that a possible and less rights-infringing approach would involve the removal of specific posts, if found to be in violation of the law … Without prejudice to the Preliminary Objections, Answering Respondent (X/ Twitter) does not oppose Petitioner’s request to restore Petitioner’s X Account in India, and will comply with such an Order if this Hon’ble Court grants it," the reply filed by X stated.
X recounted that in January 2024, the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued it a notice listing several accounts that the government intended to block as it had the “the potential to incite violence and disrupt public law.” This list included @HindutvaWatchIn.
X said that it objected to this notice, claiming that ‘HindutvaWatchIn’ did not fall within the grounds specified under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and that the MeitY flagged the posts as inciteful without basis.
It also pointed out that the posts cited by MeitY were six months to a year old, that they related to newsworthy content in India and that the government had not taken such action against similar content in the past.
Despite X’s objection, MeitY issued a blocking order directing ‘X’ to block HindutvaWatchIn. X reverted with an objection letter, stating that the blocking order was violative of Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution and Section 69A of the IT Act.
In the objection letter, ‘X’ also stated that the blocking order would disproportionately affect the user’s rights. X requested the Ministry for a Review Committee hearing but MeitY did not respond.
X eventually blocked the account of Hindutva Watch as per the blocking order after disclosing to Hameed (the account holder) that the action was being taken in response to a legal demand.
X said that it could not give further information to Hameed as MeitY had directed X to keep the contents of blocking order confidential.
X, however, added in its reply that the blocking order did not contain reasons, despite a requirement to do so under Section 69A(1) of the IT Act. It also submitted that the blocking order violates the Supreme Court's ruling in the Shreya Singhal case.
X's reply was filed through advocate Ankit Parhar of Poovayya & Co. Advocates & Solicitors.
Hindutva Watch is a research initiative that aims to monitor reports of attacks on religious minorities in India. Its X account was blocked in January this year in response to a legal demand. Subsequently, the platform's website was also blocked in India.
The X account blocking order was challenged before the Delhi High Court in April by its founder, Raqib Hameed.
The next date of hearing in the matter is October 3, 2024.