NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Wednesday you will listen Facebook India Vice President Ajit Mohan’s petition challenging the call for a panel of the Delhi assembly to stand before him on the Delhi riots. The petitioner said that it appeared to be a premeditated exercise, as the head of the panel had already made a decision on Facebook’s complicity in the Delhi riots.
Mohan’s petition, which is scheduled for hearing before a three-judge tribunal headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Wednesday, he said: “There is no law that empowers a state legislature, including a committee formed by that legislature, to take coercive action against any person unless the person obstructs or impedes its legislative functions. The rights and freedoms of the people are protected by fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and no coercive action can be taken against any citizen unless such action has been authorized by law “.
The petitioner said that on August 31, even before the issuance of the summons, the president of the commission Raghav Chadha held a press conference in which he announced that “Facebook should be treated as a co-defendant” in the Delhi riots and that there was a “premeditated conspiracy between Facebook, rioters and antisocial elements.”
Shortly thereafter, the committee issued the first summons, which ordered the petitioner to appear on September 15 as a witness and assist the committee in a “determination of the veracity of the allegations made against Facebook in the complaints and statements made before the committee.” . .
The petitioner, in a communication dated September 13, questioned the authority of the panel to convene it, since the issue was directly under the domain of the Union government. On September 18, the committee issued a new subpoena, ordering the petitioner to appear before the committee on September 23. The second subpoena stated that the noncompliance “will be treated as a violation of the committee’s privilege and the necessary action, as deemed appropriate, shall be taken against it,” the petitioner said.
.
