The Delhi Assembly told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that Facebook India Vice President and Managing Director Ajit Mohan was not cited as a defendant and no enforcement action was intended against the company.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Facebook India and Mohan against the notice issued by the Delhi Assembly to deposit with it on Wednesday for the alleged role of the social media company in the Delhi violence in February.
Top advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared at the Delhi Assembly, said that Mohan was subpoenaed as a witness to get the social media giant’s suggestions on designing a mechanism to prevent misuse of Facebook.
“He was called as a witness, not as a defendant. Coercive measures were not intended. During previous hearings, it came to light that Facebook was misused (in connection with communal disturbances). Therefore, we want to receive suggestions from them and devise a mechanism so that Facebook is not misused, ”said Singhvi.
Judge Kaul, who heads the three-judge tribunal hearing the case, said the notice issued to Mohan by the Peace and Harmony Committee of the Delhi assembly did not give such an impression.
“That is not what he said in the ad. Then you can remember the notice, ”said Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Singhvi offered to file a counter-affidavit clarifying the position of the Delhi Assembly.
The court then postponed the hearing until October 15 and Singhvi stated that no further meetings will be held on this issue until the petition is resolved. The court recorded Singhvi’s submissions and asked the Delhi Assembly to present its response within a week.
During the hearing, lead attorney Harish Salve, who appeared on Mohan’s behalf, said that the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) includes the right not to speak. Salve also told the court that if his client does not show up, he cannot be made to face a penalty.
Salve also said that Mohan works for a US-based company and does not want to comment on a politically sensitive issue in India.
The petitioners had transferred to the higher court challenging the two subpoenas issued by the Delhi Assembly and others against them on September 10 and 18.
The committee’s insistence on forcing Ajit Mohan to speak, and its categorical threat to his non-appearance as a “violation of the committee’s privilege and [to take] necessary action as deemed appropriate ”, gives rise to a clear and present danger to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the petitioners in the ultra vires process before the Committee, Mohan had alleged in his petition.
.
