Government can't say review committee order upholding blocking of tweets is top secret: X Corp to Karnataka High Court

The Indian government's decision not to disclose orders passed by a review committee upholding the blocking of several tweets on X (formerly Twitter) was questioned today by the social media giant before the Karnataka High Court..A Bench of Acting Chief Justice PS Dinesh Kumar and Justice Shivashankare Gowda heard submissions on this aspect while hearing an appeal filed by X Corp challenging a single-judge order that had imposed ₹50 lakh costs on the platform while dismissing its challenge to certain Central government orders from 2021-2022 to block several tweets..Appearing for X Corp, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya told the Court that the Indian government has now disclosed that many of these blocking orders have been upheld by a review committee.However, the government has refused to provide a copy of the review committee orders because they were deemed to be "top secret", Poovayya said."How can review order be top secret when Rule 14 says you have to record reasons? How can the statute say 'record (reasons)' and Union say 'Top Secret'?".Poovayya further pointed out that X Corp would be put in a difficult position where it would not be able to properly challenge the blocking orders if the review committee orders were not divulged.He also argued that the review committee has, in fact, ruled in X Corp's favour with respect to some of the blocking demands. The senior counsel added that the review committee may even have made adverse observations against the Central government in other cases, even if the blocking demand was ultimately upheld. "In 10 instances, review committee holds in my (X Corp/ Twitter's) favour and orders unblocking. But I don't have the benefit of review committee order...How do I run the business? My business is free speech...If the Union were to say that it will not place review order (before the Court), I can (construe) it to mean that the review committee orders were in my favour, that review committee may have said 'why are there no reasons, next time there should be reasons,'" Poovayya said..On queries by the Bench, the senior lawyer also summed up the main contentions of X Corp in its appeal, namely:1. Whether reasons should be recorded before blocking content on the internet, and whether such reasons must be communicated to the intermediary so that the intermediary may challenge the blocking order if required?"Can there be a blocking order which is one line saying pull down 1,500 contents, or should it contain reasons?" argued Poovayya, on this aspect today. He also clarified that his focus is not on "emergency blocking orders," in which cases he conceded that reasons need not always be given at the time of making the blocking demand. Rather, he argued that X Corp's challenge was to the manner in which ordinary or general blocking demands were made without communicating reasons. 2. Whether the government's orders to block content on X infringe on the social media intermediary's rights to host a free-speech platform?"My business is predicated on the fact that people can express their free speech. If that is lost, my business is lost...I am aggrieved by the fact that it (government's blocking orders) impinges on my right to provide a platform for free speech," Poovayya argued. 3. Whether a foreign company can espouse a right under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India before an Indian court?"Traditional wisdom says it is not even for corporate, it is only for individual. But that has changed. Fortunately, even the single judge accepts that I have locus," Poovayya submitted today. .The Central government's counsel sought a week's time to respond in the matter, including on the aspect of whether the review committee order can be produced. The matter is likely to be heard next on February 12. .The case before the Court initially started with Twitter, as it was known then, challenging certain blocking orders by the Indian government.A single-judge of the Karnataka High Court rejected the challenge and ordered the social media giant to pay a ₹50 lakh fine for its apparent failure to ensure timely compliance with blocking demands.The microblogging platform challenged the single-judge order.On August 10, a division bench of the High Court stayed the single-judge's order, provided X Corp deposits ₹25 lakh to show its bonafides..[Read live-coverage of the hearing today]