Can international entity knock on doors of writ court? Karnataka High Court asks Twitter in plea against blocking orders

While hearing Twitter's plea challenging blocking orders issued by the Central government, the Karnataka High Court on Monday asked whether an international entity can knock at the doors of a writ court..Appearing for Twitter, Advocate Manu Kulkarni told Justice Krishna S Dixit that invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction of High Courts) is not limited to violation of constitutional rights and there was no bar on Twitter approaching the Court. "I can claim Article 14. I am not a citizen, I am not claiming Article 19 rights. There is nothing stopping me from approaching this court under 226," he submitted. .Further, it was stated that the social media platform had no other efficacious remedy apart from approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. "I could have filed a civil suit. Efficacy would not be the same. In Shreya Singhal, Court did not strike down 69A because there was a writ remedy," Kulkarni submitted..Kulkarni further argued on the importance of the government recording reasons in cases such as these. Offering reasons for blocking orders and other such action would provide parties with knowledge on how to structure a challenge before a higher court and would act as a deterrent against arbitrary action, he said..The Court adjourned the hearing to Wednesday while asking the parties to put forth international jurisprudence on how recording of reasons is treated by courts in other countries..The blocking orders challenged by Twitter were issued by the Central government between February 2021 and February 2022. The government had directed Twitter to block certain information from access to the public, and to suspend several accounts.Out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, Twitter has challenged the blocking of only 39 URLs..In its arguments, the Central government had told the Karnataka High Court that since Twitter is a foreign entity and the government's ten blocking orders were not arbitrary, the company could not fall back on fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19 (right to freedom of speech and expression) of the Indian Constitution.The government also said that Twitter could not speak on behalf of its account holders and, therefore, had no locus standi to file a petition challenging the blocking orders..On the other hand, Twitter had submitted that blocking orders issued by the Central government must contain reasons that are communicated to users of the social media platform.It was also contended that the Centre was not empowered to issue general orders calling for the blocking of social media accounts..In its petition filed before the High Court, Twitter contended that account-level blocking is a disproportionate measure and violates the rights of users under the Constitution.The petition stated that the orders in question were manifestly arbitrary, and procedurally and substantively not in consonance with Section 69A of the IT Act.Further, they fail to comply with the procedures and safeguards prescribed by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules), it was submitted.Twitter also argued that the direction to block entire accounts falls afoul of Section 69A of the IT Act..In response to the plea, the Central government submitted that the directions to block certain Twitter accounts were issued in national and public interest and to prevent incidents of lynching and mob violence..[Read our live coverage of the hearing here]