Supreme Court seeks Centre reply on Gujarat AAP plea over social media suspension
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to respond to AAP Gujarat's plea against the suspension of its social media accounts. The petition questions whether Section 79(3)(b) can be used to order blocking and seeks to void related directions.
The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Centre’s response on a plea filed by the Gujarat unit of the Aam Aadmi Party challenging the suspension of its social media accounts. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice on the plea.
The bench also tagged the matter with other pending petitions that challenge the blocking of social media accounts and posts without notice being issued to the user. During a brief hearing, the court was told that the issues in the present plea overlap with those in the pending matters, though they are not identical.
Appearing in the case, senior advocate Shadan Farasat contended that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, which has been invoked by the authorities, was not applicable. He argued that the provision was a safe harbour clause for the intermediary.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that issuing notice to the Centre might not be necessary and that a copy of the petition could instead be allowed to be served.
In its plea, the party has questioned the legal basis for the blocking and suspension of its social media accounts. It has also sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) is not a source of power for authorities to direct the blocking of information.
The plea further seeks a declaration that all consequential directions, rules and notifications issued under the provision, insofar as they relate to the blocking of information, are void. AAP has also sought the quashing of the directions allegedly issued by law enforcement authorities for blocking or suspending the party’s social media accounts.
AAP has also requested the court to declare the suspension of its social media accounts unconstitutional. The party said its account had 800,000 followers.
It argued that any such action should only be taken after prior notice. The government, it said, must provide written reasons and act strictly in accordance with the grounds outlined under Article 19(2) of the Constitution and Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Centre’s response on a plea filed by the Gujarat unit of the Aam Aadmi Party challenging the suspension of its social media accounts. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice on the plea.
The bench also tagged the matter with other pending petitions that challenge the blocking of social media accounts and posts without notice being issued to the user. During a brief hearing, the court was told that the issues in the present plea overlap with those in the pending matters, though they are not identical.
Appearing in the case, senior advocate Shadan Farasat contended that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, which has been invoked by the authorities, was not applicable. He argued that the provision was a safe harbour clause for the intermediary.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that issuing notice to the Centre might not be necessary and that a copy of the petition could instead be allowed to be served.
In its plea, the party has questioned the legal basis for the blocking and suspension of its social media accounts. It has also sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) is not a source of power for authorities to direct the blocking of information.
The plea further seeks a declaration that all consequential directions, rules and notifications issued under the provision, insofar as they relate to the blocking of information, are void. AAP has also sought the quashing of the directions allegedly issued by law enforcement authorities for blocking or suspending the party’s social media accounts.
AAP has also requested the court to declare the suspension of its social media accounts unconstitutional. The party said its account had 800,000 followers.
It argued that any such action should only be taken after prior notice. The government, it said, must provide written reasons and act strictly in accordance with the grounds outlined under Article 19(2) of the Constitution and Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
