[Breaking] Ajit Mohan was summoned as a witness, without threat of coercive action: Mukul Rohatgi, Harish Salve and Singhvi appear

The Supreme Court today issued notice in a petition filed by Facebook India Head Ajit Mohan challenging the Delhi government's Peace & Committee's summons to him in relation to the Delhi riots..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari also ordered the Committee not to hold a meeting with respect to the issue till further orders. The matter will next be heard on October 15..Delhi Panel summon to Facebook India Head violates "Right to Remain Silent": Plea in SC challenges notice by "Peace & Harmony Committee" .Appearing for Mohan, Senior Advocate Harish Salve submitted that the privilege does not extend to this kind of inquiry, and that the Delhi government could not put Mohan "in the pain of punishment" by asking him to appear before the Committee..Salve then took the Court through the text of the summons issued by the AAP government to Mohan. Informing the Court that the summons stated that Mohan's failure to be present would amount to breach of privilege, he argued,"Privilege is something to be decided by the Assembly. A Committee cannot decide whether action on privilege can be taken or not. This is a serious threat.".Salve went on to argue that his client has the fundamental right not to speak under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution."As a House, you may decide whatever you want to, but if I do not want to participate and give my views before the Committee then...please consider I work for a US-based company. I do not want to comment on this politically sensitive issue.".The Senior Counsel further submitted that public order and police are two subjects that stand excluded from the power and authority of the Delhi Legislative Assembly. He said,"In a constitutional framework such as ours, can a person be punished summarily without a proper trial and absent legislation?"Concluding his arguments, Salve asked whether privilege extends to these areas and whether the same would be compatible with Mohan's rights under Article 19. He also said that no coercive action can be taken against Mohan for not appearing before the Committee..Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi was next to make submissions, on behalf of Facebook. He argued,"If he (Mohan) does not go before the Committee, it is not breach of privilege. I personally as a lawyer have been called by Parliament for giving opinions number of times. You cannot compel and say non-appearance will be breach of privilege. There is no penalisation.".Rohatgi then took the Court through a press conference in which the Committee declared that Facebook was prima facie responsible for inciting violence during the Delhi riots."...they said that incriminating material was not taken down. If it was not taken down, then everyone has the right to move Court for it. Everyday, Facebook is told to take down material that is in violation of the laws. They could have gone to Court.".Appearing for the Committee, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi began to make arguments. At this point, Justice Kaul said,"As far as notice is concerned, we are going to issue it. You argue on protective order or relief to be given or not."Singhvi then said,"Privilege and coercion is projected to get orders from My Lords."Justice Kaul responded,"You have given them the chance to by sending the orders (summons).".Justice Bose observed,"Article 19 can apply to Petitioner 1 (Ajit Mohan) because you are compelling him to say something."However, Singhvi insisted that Mohan was called only as a witness and that there would no coercive steps for non-appearance.Justice Kaul then said,"If you are trying to change the legal tenor, then it must be in those terms. You may have to take a stand for this Committee... You may have to file an affidavit to clarify this."Singhvi clarified that Mohan was only called as a witness, without the threat of coercive action for failing to appear. He also stated that Facebook was asked to appear not as an accused, but to get assurances and safety measure to ensure that the platform will not be misused..Justice Kaul then noted,"This is not what you have said in the notices. You have advised them, advise them better and issue better notices."Singhvi assured the Court that the Committee would rectify the order and address the deficiencies that are bothering the Court.Kaul J added,"I'm sure you will be able to remedy the notice. And in that press conference, if you have said those things, then you will have to take a stand."Singhvi submitted that the transcript of the press conference that was read out is misleading, because the Committee only intended to show that Facebook was misused..Singhvi then pointed out that Mohan was required to appear before the Committee today at 3 PM. However, in light of the hearing, the meeting has been deferred. He also said that he would file an affidavit addressing the Court's concerns..The Court proceeded to issue notice in the matter, and directed the Committee not to hold a meeting qua this petition till further orders. The matter will be next heard on October 15..The Court was hearing the plea filed by Facebook India Chief Ajit Mohan challenging the notice served upon him by the "Peace and Harmony Committee" of the Delhi government in relation to the Delhi riots that took place in February this year..In his plea, Mohan has argued that the Delhi Assembly's Committee does not have the authority to compel him to appear before it, since the same issue was already before a parliamentary panel.Mohan has submitted that he has already appeared before a Parliamentary Standing Committee in this regard..Further, the plea which seeks to quash the Delhi government notice, also states that the public order of Delhi is within the domain of the Central government.The petition also states that in a press conference, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) alleged that Facebook had a prima facie role to play in the instigation of the riots. The Delhi government had no authority to make these allegations and stated that a supplementary charge sheet has to be filed against the social media giant..The Delhi government had sent two summons to Mohan asking him to appear before the Committee and stated that if he failed to appear, it would be a "breach of privilege". The plea reads,"When an enquiry into a subject matter over which the Legislature lacks jurisdiction extends beyond its members – whether by summoning non members at the threat of sanctions for refusing to appear, or by directing agencies to take actions against those non-members – the matter is amenable to judicial review.".The petitioner further states that there "is no law that empowers a State Legislature, including a committee formed by that Legislature, to take coercive action against any person unless it obstructs or impedes its legislative functions."The plea also avers that by targeting Facebook – a platform that allows users to express themselves – "summons create a chilling effect on the free speech rights of users of the Facebook service.".Mohan has argued that this plea involves a question of whether a Committee of a State Legislature can compel a non-member to answer questions, thereby overriding the non-member’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution.This above issue is pending in N Ravi and Ors. v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, where the Apex Court observed that the interplay between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 on one hand, and Article 194(3) on the other hand, requires detailed consideration, and referred these issues to a seven-judge Bench.