Facebook India and its vice president and managing director, Ajit Mohan, moved to the Supreme Court on Tuesday challenging the notifications of September 10 and 18 issued by the Peace and Harmony Committee of the Delhi Legislative Assembly that sought Mohan’s presence before the panel investigating the Delhi riots. February 2020 and the role of the social media giant in not curbing hate speech in relation to the riots.
The petition states that the matter being investigated by the Delhi assembly falls within the exclusive domain of the Union government and a state legislative assembly cannot compel witnesses to appear and provide evidence on such matters.
“The Committee seeks to compel Petitioner No. 1 (Ajit Mohan) to provide testimony on issues within the exclusive domain of the Union of India. Specifically, the Committee is seeking to make a “determination of the veracity of the allegations leveled against Facebook” in the Delhi riots, which meddles on issues assigned exclusively to the Union of India, “the petition says.
The regulation of intermediaries such as Facebook is included in the list of the Union of the Constitution in the Entry “Communication” (Entry 31) in said list. The Parliament, exercising that power, promulgated the Information Technology Act of 2000 to regulate intermediaries. Therefore, any assessment of the veracity of the accusations against Facebook as an intermediary is exclusively a matter of the Union, it was presented.
Furthermore, it was alleged that the summons violates the petitioner’s right to remain silent and the right to privacy, fundamental rights of articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
“By targeting Facebook, a platform that allows users to express themselves, the call creates a crippling effect on the freedom of expression rights of users of the Facebook service,” the statement added.
The case will be heard by a bench of three judges led by Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Wednesday.
Mohan was first summoned by the committee for its September 15 meeting in connection with complaints alleging deliberate omissions and inaction by the social media company to remove hateful content and posts. The committee had previously said that at its August 31 meeting, it had prima facie found that Facebook India was allegedly complicit in exacerbating communal violence in northeast Delhi in February that left at least 53 people dead and more than 400 injured.
A notice was issued to Facebook officials on September 10 based on that finding asking them to appear before the panel on September 15, but Facebook officials did not show up for that meeting, after which a second notice was issued on September 15. September 18.
In its subpoena issued on September 18, the committee had said that it is empowered to make suggestions to the central government and that it is in line with cooperative federalism that “covers a large number of areas, including making recommendations to the union government when the the same is required. ”
The committee is investigating the matter based on several complaints received from the public after an article was published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on August 14.
The WSJ report titled ‘Facebook Hate Speech Rules Collide with Indian Politics’ alluded to the role allegedly played by top Facebook officials, particularly its head of public policy, Ankhi Das, by citing business imperatives to refrain. to apply the rules of hate speech to at least 4 individuals and groups linked to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), even though the groups and individuals had been internally targeted for promoting or participating in violence.
Meanwhile, Facebook had written a letter to the Delhi assembly panel on September 13 stating that the matter was already being considered by a parliamentary committee and that the issue of content regulation is outside the scope of the state assembly.
This stance was reiterated by Facebook and Mohan in the superior court with the petition stating that a state legislature cannot compel non-members to appear before it for an investigation on an issue that is outside its jurisdiction.
“The Constitution of India, by empowering the Parliament and state legislatures, gives them the power to retain a non-member in violation of privileges, but only if that non-member has impeded or obstructed the legislative functions of the body. The powers of the Committee do not extend to compelling non-members to appear when the non-member has not impeded or obstructed the legislative functioning, ”the statement said.
.
