[Delhi Riots] Facebook cannot wash their hands off the issue; their role is not as innocuous as they claim: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, held that Facebook is a platform where political differences are reflected and the social media platform cannot, therefore, be allowed to wash their hands off the Delhi Riots issue (Ajit Mohan v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi)..The top court, therefore, said that the plea by Facebook India Head Ajit Mohan seeking to quash notices issued to him by Delhi's Peace and Harmony Committee, which is examining the Delhi riots of 2020, is a preventive endeavour to preclude the respondents from even considering the aspect of privilege by citing absence of legislative power. "They cannot wash their hands off the issue as this is their very business. Their role is not as innocuous as they are seeking to contend," the Court said on Facebook.The Court therefore, made it clear that it cannot accept the plea that a State Assembly must confine itself to the core function of legislation. "This would be unreasonably restricting the role of an elected body," the Court added..[BREAKING] Delhi can ill-afford another riots; role of Facebook needs to be looked into: Supreme Court [READ JUDGMENT].A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy stated that unless the Peace and Harmony committee embarks on a course completely devoid of its functional mandate specified by the Assembly, widest amplitude must be given to the functioning of such a committee. "It is the parliamentary committee system that has been recognised as a creative way of parliaments to perform their basic functions. The same principle would apply, even if it is to some extent beyond their legislative domain," the Court said. .Delhi electorate mature but not the Elected; Centre and State cannot see eye to eye: Supreme Court on tussle between BJP and AAP govts in Delhi .The top court further held that it would be a monumental tragedy to conclude that the legislature is restricted to the function of enacting laws. "The role of the legislature is sought to be diminished by such an argument. The legislature debates many aspects, and at times records a sense of the House. This is not unusual or without precedent," said the apex court. .Substantiating how Mohan's plea was "premature", the Bench examined the factual matrix, to conclude that only a summons has been issued for appearance before the Peace and Harmony Committee and that "the question of any privilege power being exercised is yet far away". .The top court further held that it has "no hesitation in stating that the endeavour of the petitioners to sidestep their appearance before the Committee on a perceived notion of not being an official representative - is not acceptable to us – whether the exercise is for a legislative enactment, or for other purposes connected with its legislative domain". .In conclusion, Supreme Court ruled the following:.1. There is no dispute about the right of the Assembly or the Committee to proceed on grounds of breach of privilege per se. 2. The power to compel attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential power. 3. Members and non-Members (like the petitioners) can equally be directed to appear before the Committee and depose on oath. 4. In the given facts of the case, the issue of privileges is premature. 5. Canvassing a clash between privilege powers and certain fundamental rights is also preemptory in the present case. 6. The Assembly admittedly does not have any power to legislate on aspects of law and order and police in view of Entries 1 and 2 of List II in the Seventh Schedule inter alia being excluded. Further, regulation of intermediaries is also subject matter covered by the I.T. Act.7. In the larger context, the concept of peace and harmony goes much beyond law and order and police, more so in view of onthe-ground governance being in the hands of the Delhi Government. 8. Para 4(vii) of the Terms of Reference does not survive for any opinion of the Committee. It will not be permissible for the Committee to encroach upon any aspects strictly within the domain of Entries 1 and 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. As such, any representative of the petitioners would have the right to not answer questions directly covered by these two fields..[Read Judgment]