The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from the Center and the Gujarat government on a petition by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) against the government’s orders last month to suspend the Instagram and Facebook accounts of its Gujarat unit a day before the local body elections.
The petition asked the court to seek records to ascertain the reason for the suspension of social media accounts on April 25, and asked the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines and procedural safeguards governing the exercise of powers to block or suspend official social media accounts of registered political parties.
This is necessary to ensure protection of the fundamental right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which limits this right on specific grounds under Article 19(2), the petition filed by advocate Siddhant Sharma said.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notices to the state and central governments and sent the case to attach a related matter pending before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
“We will issue notice and flag the matter,” the bench said, despite Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s insistence that the court not issue notice to the government and instead get a copy of the petition that was served on it.
Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for AAP, said the petition raises an important ground as to whether Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act can be the source of authority to issue such a direction.
“Section 79(3)(b) is not at all an appropriate provision for making such an order. This is a safe harbor provision for intermediaries,” he said.
The “safe harbour” protection under Section 79 exempts social intermediaries from liability for the actions of their users, provided they adhere to guidelines set by the government. Under section 79(3)(b), they lose this immunity if they fail to remove or disable access to illegal content after receiving “actual knowledge” or notification from a court or government body.
When asked by the Council if that case was already pending before the Supreme Court, Frasat said that while it was not “identical,” there was a petition filed by the Software Freedom Law Center in which the overlapping issues raised in his plea were still pending.
He urged the bench to consider listing the matter urgently and seek interim relief.
“Today, my portal is gone,” Ferasat said. “I need something for the interregnum.”
AAP also asked the court to declare the suspension of its accounts, which have 800,000 followers, unconstitutional, insisting that any such action should be taken only after prior notice, requiring the government to provide reasons in writing and in strict accordance with the reasons set out in Article 19(2) of the Constitution along with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
