Plea Challenging Suspension Of Twitter Accounts In Delhi HC Blames Elon Musk, Dismissed With Rs 25K Costs

‘Thoroughly misconceived’ petition

Justice Yashwant Varma termed the application to be "thoroughly misconceived". At the outset, the court said "even we need entertainment" and asked the counsel for the petitioner if he was serious in prosecuting the application.

"This application is thoroughly misconceived. It cannot possibly be disputed that a corporate entity is thoroughly represented and therefore, there was no need to file such an application. Accordingly, it is dismissed with a costs of Rs 25,000," the judge said.

‘Musk has a very different stand on free speech’

Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for the petitioner, contended that Musk was not only the director but also holds substantial shares in Twitter and was a necessary party in the matter.

The application said that Musk has a very different approach to free speech and, therefore, his views were important to be heard. “Elon Musk has a very different stand on free speech whereby his opinion is that as long as speech does not violate the law of the land in question, the same should not be curtailed by the respondent no. 2 (Twitter),” it claimed.

Twitter deleting accounts on ‘its own sweet will’

The high court was hearing a petition by Dimple Kaul, who claimed that her Twitter handle had more than 2,55,000 followers and was used to post educational content in relation to history, literature, politics, archaeology, Indic culture, non-violence, equality, and women rights.

The petitioner’s counsel had contended that Twitter was “deleting profiles as per its own sweet will and they have no right to do so” in law and asserted that the account be restored during the pendency of the petition.

The high court had earlier sought the stand of Twitter on the petition challenging the “out of the blue” illegal suspension of a user account for alleged violation of its rules.

Legal violations alleged

The petitioner has asserted that Twitter performs a “public function” and is bound by Sections 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

“There is no sanction for the suo-motu actions of the respondent No.2 in suspending the Twitter Account of the Petitioner under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 either. As a matter of fact, the same could lead to the Respondent No.2 losing its intermediary status (under the law),” the petition has argued.

It has further contended that the suspension is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution as it is an impairment of the right to free speech and is arbitrary.

Twitter’s response

Twitter’s counsel had said a writ petition was not maintainable against Twitter which is a private entity. He had said granting any interim relief in the present cases would be as good as granting final relief.

(With inputs from PTI)