[BREAKING] Delhi Assembly can examine Delhi Riots but cannot don role of prosecuting agency: Supreme Court on Facebook India Head Ajit Mohan plea

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Delhi Assembly's powers to constitute committee to examine Delhi Riots of 2020 since it is social issue but ruled that the committee so constituted cannot act like a prosecuting agency (Ajit Mohan v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi). .The Court, therefore, held that the petition filed by Facebook India Head Ajit Mohan challenging the notices issued by the Delhi Assembly's Peace and Harmony Committee seeking Mohan's presence before it as part of its inquiry into riots, was premature as nothing has happened before the committee..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy agreed with the submission of Delhi Assembly that no coercive action has been taken against Mohan and the notice issued to him was to seek his assistance in examining a social problem."We agree with Dr Singhvi's contention that no coercive action has been taken against Mr Mohan," the Court noted. The Court said that Delhi Assembly can look into the Delhi Riots even though law and order does not fall within the domain of Delhi government. "The Assembly admittedly does not have the power to legislate under the issues which fall under the domain of union govt. However objective of peace and harmony go beyond law and order and police," the Court said. The Delhi Assembly, the top court opined, is not different from any other State assembly in the country except with respect to certain subjects as under list 2 of 7th schedule."Investigation of a socially complicated problem too is under its domain," the Court said.However, in doing so, the committee cannot don the role of a prosecuting agency and direct filing of supplementary chargesheet etc, the Court made it clear. Therefore, any representative of the Facebook India can deny answering any question by the committee if it falls within the prohibited domains, the Court said. In this regard, the Court also took exception to the press conference held by the Delhi government in which Facebook's alleged role in the riots was castigated by the Delhi government. "The statements made in the press conference by respondents were hardly conducive to the proceedings before the committee. It was said Facebook with vested interest in Delhi riots.... these statements should not have been made and can give rise to apprehension in mind of petitioner," the Court said. .The Court in its judgment also noted the impact of social media websites and the difficulty in regulating the content on such sites. "Technological age has created digital platforms which can be uncontrolled at times. One such creation is of intermediaries which states that they have no control over the content posts. Less informed individuals may not verify information from leaders and take it as gospel truth," the Court observed. .In his plea, Mohan had 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 had submitted that he already appeared before a Parliamentary Standing Committee in this regard..Senior counsel Harish Salve, representing Facebook, had told the Court during the hearing of the case that the proceedings before the committee are outside the scope of jurisdiction of the Delhi assembly and that Facebook is regulated by central law – the Information Technology Act (IT Act).“I am not willing to go before them. Allegations are being made that Facebook has created disharmony in Delhi. Facebook does not write anything. It provides a platform. We are regulated by a central law – the IT Act,” Salve said.In this regard, Facebook referred to Article 239AA(3)(a) as per which Delhi Assembly does not have power to deal with entries 1 and 2 of the State list which relates to public order and police.Salve also said that Facebook chose to appear before the Union Ministry of Information Technology as a commercial necessity, since they are empowered to shut down Facebook. However, since the Committee constituted by the Delhi Assembly has no such powers, Facebook decided not to appear before it."I don't run Facebook, it is run by the Valley (Silicon Valley, USA). You are trying to hold an inquisition against Facebook. We go to Ministry of Information Technology because its a commercial necessity and they can shut us down. But Delhi committee cannot, we choose not to appear before them," Salve submitted.The Central government had also thrown its weight behind Facebook stating that Delhi assembly’s action in holding such an inquiry is without jurisdiction.“Public order and police are not under Delhi assembly and their action is without jurisdiction,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who was representing the central government submitted.Salve also submitted that Facebook India cannot be compelled to speak before the Peace and Harmony Committee and that the top Court should uphold the right to silence."The right to silence is a very valuable right in today's day and age... please protect this right and leave it to me to decide whether or not I want to go. Lay down that this summons is an invitation and no more," Salve argued.During the course of his submissions, Salve had contended that the Delhi Assembly's issue is less to do with Facebook and more to do with its differences with the ruling Central Government..[Delhi Assembly-Facebook row] Right to silence valuable, protect it: Harish Salve urges Supreme Court as it reserves orders .On the other hand, Delhi Legislative Assembly and the Committee had told the Supreme Court that Facebook, being a corporation, has no locus to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the notice issued to them by the Delhi Assembly’s Peace and Harmony Committee and that is why they filed the petition through their India Head, Ajit Mohan..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the committee had submitted that Facebook got its India Head Ajit Mohan to file the petition to overcome the legal hurdle Facebook faced in filing a petition under Article 32..“Article 32 right is not available to corporations and I would also say to people who represent those corporations. So in order to avail Article 32 remedy, they got Ajit Mohan. So the veil on Ajit Mohan has to be lifted. He is not a shareholder. It is a symbiotic relationship between him and Facebook. So the petitioner before Your Lordships is Facebook and not Ajit Mohan. He (Ajit Mohan) is a sham petitioner,” Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan had argued echoing Singhvi's submissions..Facebook has no locus under Article 32, Ajit Mohan a sham petitioner: Delhi Assembly, Peace and Harmony Committee tells Supreme Court .The Delhi Assembly, on the other hand, maintained that Mohan was certainly summoned albeit only as an expert witness. There was no coercive action to be taken against him..Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prashanto Sen appeared for the Delhi Legislative Assembly. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan appeared for the Delhi's Peace and Harmony Committee. Senior Advocate Harish Salve appeared for Facebook. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Central Government..[Read Judgment]