In July of 2022, Twitter sued the Indian government in response to its orders to block certain accounts and tweets, earning the praise of numerous free speech advocates as a critical action.
It marked the first time a social media company sued the government due to commands to remove content, which are often condemned for being unclear and obscure.
The Karnataka High Court last week rejected Twitter's arguments and imposed a 5m rupee ($61,000; £48,000) penalty for not satisfying the contested orders in over twelve months. Reportedly, Twitter has an estimated 24 million users in India.
Many digital rights experts are concerned about the outcome.
Radhika Roy, a lawyer and spokesperson for digital rights organisation Internet Freedom Foundation, noted that the judgement allows the state to take actions blocking certain orders which do not adhere to procedural safeguards.
She noted that the court could have put an end to the rampant exploitation of the law to eliminate unwanted material from the web; rather it has in effect accepted it.
Commentators are uneasy about Twitter's next step. Will the leading social media firm obey the take down orders or challenge the ruling?
Twitter, before it was taken over by Elon Musk, filed the case. Since his ownership, they have adhered to the removal orders they have been given.
Following his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the US, Mr Musk declared that the company has no alternative, apart from adhering to the laws laid out by the local government, or else it risks being shut down.
The latest verdict stirs up worries about freedom of expression as the administration has allegedly been intensifying their supervision of online material in recent times. Federal minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar has specified that all foreign web sites must adhere to Indian regulations.
In 2022, India had blocked 3,417 URLs on Twitter, while there had only been eight blocked in 2014.
Twitter argued that the 39 orders of the federal government to stop access to accounts and tweets went against India's information technology law, which permits the state to restrict web-based material that threatens security of the state and public order among other issues.
The government was stated to not possess the ability to impede accounts but merely particular tweets.
Moreover, the declaration indicated that the instructions lacked adequate justification and that the government had not sufficiently demonstrated why the content must be removed.
Users whose account and tweets had been blocked had not been informed by the government.
The government maintained that the orders were lawful. It stated that the posts in question had been made by "anti-India campaigners" and that by informing them of the action being taken against them, the possibility of further damage being done by these individuals tweeting anonymously was increased.
The government declared that it was fitting that only Twitter was apprised of these mandates.
The law's stipulation that these orders must remain confidential makes it impossible to determine which accounts and tweets were targeted.
An instance revealed in the judgement showed that at least one account had tweeted about the 2021 farmer protest over the government's new farm laws.
The court has declared that the government has the authority to suppress not only tweets, but also entire accounts.
These orders may continue for an unspecified period of time. Furthermore, the government may choose to block content without notifying the user.
Based on the law, before a blocking order is issued, users or the company hosting the info - like Twitter - must be provided with notice and an opportunity to present their case in court.
Under emergency circumstances, the government can enact a prompt website blockage with subsequent notification.
The orders additionally require written particulars concerning the justification for the website blocking. Twitter asserted that this aspect was absent in the directives issued by the government.
Nevertheless, the court inspected the tweets and social media accounts in dispute and decided that they contained material that was "outrageous", "treacherous and anti-national" and could possibly endanger national security and disrupt public order. It noted that these facts had been reported to Twitter.
In addition, the court recognized the government's contention that comprehensive justifications were discussed with Twitter in consultations that had occurred prior to the issuance of the blocking order.
The court ruled that it was up to the discretion of the users if they were to be given notice. Referenced were "terrorists", "foreign adversaries intending to discredit India, destabilise it, and harm national safety by inciting communal violence".
Therefore, it concurred with the government's contention that it would not be sensible to give warning to the aforesaid people who had an anti-India stance.
It is claimed by specialists that this decision restricts users' capability to protect their entitlement to freedom of expression.
Sachin Dhawan, a programme manager at digital rights research body Centre for Communication Governance, stated that users will not be provided with an opportunity to provide an explanation before a blocking order is imposed.
He further commented that, despite the decree, they will be kept in the dark regarding the reasons for their material being restrained.
He stated that the process which had already been significantly secretive would become even less clear. Mr Dhawan further stated that this was contrary to established procedures such as allowing a "notice and a hearing" to someone affected by a given situation.
Yet, a separate significant case awaiting judgment by the Delhi High Court could have a different result.
The government has blocked a satirical dowry calculator website without giving its founder prior notice.
In May of 2020, the High Court commanded the government to provide the originator with a copy of the ruling and to grant him a hearing, during which the ban was retained. The court is currently deliberating whether or not the website can be blocked.
Mr Roy from Internet Freedom Foundation expressed optimism in the court's order to furnish a copy to the founder; the ultimate resolution, however, remains to be seen.
BBC News India is now available on YouTube - click the link to subscribe and watch our range of documentaries, explainers and features.
Comments