Tuesday, March 19, 2024
Follow us on
BREAKING NEWS
हरियाणा में नायब सिंह सैनी कैबिनेट का आज शाम साढ़े 4 बजे होगा विस्तारनोएडा: एल्विश यादव ने सांपों का जहर मंगवाने की बात कबूली- सूत्रदिल्ली जल बोर्ड घोटाला: ED के समन पर आज पेश नहीं होंगे सीएम केजरीवालदिल्ली सरकार के पूर्व मंत्री सत्येंद्र जैन को कोर्ट से झटका, आज ही सरेंडर करने का दिया आदेशतेलंगाना की राज्यपाल तमिलिसाई सुंदरराजन ने राज्यपाल के पद से दिया इस्तीफाचंडीगढ़:चौथी योगासन खेल चैम्पियनशिप आयोजित सांपों के जहर के मामले में एलविश यादव को नोएडा पुलिस ने गिरफ्तार कियालोकसभा 2024 के आम चुनाव की घोषणा के साथ आदर्श आचार संहिता हो गई लागू, अब नई विकास परियोजनाओं की हरियाणा सरकार घोषणा नहीं कर सकती-मुख्य निर्वाचन अधिकारी
National

SC notices over Delhi House FB summons

September 24, 2020 06:12 AM

COURTESY HT SEPT 24

SC notices over Delhi House FB summons
Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said Facebook India vice-president and MD Ajit Mohan had not been summoned as an accused


Murali Krishnan

htreporters@hindustantimes.com

New delhi : The Supreme Court directed a Delhi assembly panel on Wednesday not to take coercive action till October 15 against Facebook India head Ajit Mohan, who has been summoned over the allegations that the social networking website did not do enough to remove incendiary content.

Following the order, the Peace and Harmony committee of the Delhi assembly deferred its proceedings, and said it would notify further course of action and the next date of sitting in due course.

The committee, headed by AAP MLA Raghav Chadha, issued a notice to Mohan on Sunday, giving the executive a final chance to appear before the panel considered contempt proceedings.

The Delhi assembly told the Supreme Court that it summoned Mohan as a witness to hear his suggestions on devising a system to prevent misuse of the social media company. “No coercive steps were intended,” senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the legislature, said.

The apex court was hearing a petition filed by Facebook India and Mohan against notices issued by the Delhi assembly’s Peace and Harmony Committee on September 10 and 20 asking Mohan to present himself before the panel on Wednesday in connection with the social media company’s failure to curb hate speech that may have played a role in fuelling the Delhi riots.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said the notices issued to Mohan by the committee did not give an impression that no coercive action was intended against Facebook.

Singhvi offered to file a counter-affidavit clarifying the stance of the Delhi assembly. He also said the meeting of the committee, scheduled for Wednesday, had been deferred and no further meeting with Facebook officials on this subject will be held for the time being because the apex is seized of the case.

The court recorded Singhvi’s submissions, asked the Delhi assembly to file its response within a week and posted the case for further hearing on October 15.

The Peace and Harmony Committee, in a statement on Wednesday, said: “In view of the issues of law pending before the Supreme Court, today’s proceedings before the Delhi Legislative Assembly’s Committee on Peace & Harmony has been deferred. Further course of action and next date of sitting of committee will be notified in due course.”

The committee chairman Raghav Chadha could not be reached despite several phone calls and texts. The Delhi government did not react.

The committee is investigating Facebook’s alleged complicity in Delhi riots after it received several complaints from the public pursuant to 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, had alluded to the role allegedly played by top Facebook officials, particularly its public policy head Ankhi Das, in the social media platform refraining from applying its hate-speech rules to at least four individuals and groups linked to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) although the entities had been internally flagged for promoting or participating in violence. Das, according to the reports, said Facebook’s business interests may be harmed if it against them.

Mohan was first summoned by the committee on September 15 in connection with complaints alleging deliberate omissions and inaction by Facebook in removing hate speech. The committee had earlier said that in its meeting of August 31, it had prima facie (at first sight) found Facebook India was allegedly complicit in aggravating the communal violence in north-east Delhi in February that left at least 53 people dead and over 400 injured.

Facebook officials failed to appear for the September 15 meeting after which a second notice was issued on September 18 asking Mohan to appear before it on September 23 (Wednesday). Meanwhile, an article on BuzzFeed, which accessed an internal Facebook memo, cited instances of “politically sophisticated” attempts to influence the Delhi elections in February..

Facebook India and Mohan approached the top court on Tuesday, challenging the notices. They contended that the subject matter under investigation by the Delhi assembly falls within the exclusive domain of the central government and a state legislative assembly cannot compel witnesses to appear and provide evidence on such subjects.

It was also highlighted that regulation of intermediaries like Facebook falls within the Union list of the Constitution under the Entry “Communication” (Entry 31). Parliament, in exercise of that power, enacted the Information Technology Act, 2000 to regulate intermediaries. Any assessment of the veracity of allegations against Facebook as an intermediary is exclusively a Union government subject, it was submitted.The petitioners also argued that the summons violate the right of the petitioner to remain silent and right to privacy, which are fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The committee’s insistence on compelling Mohan to speak, and its categorical threat that his non-appearance would be a “breach of privilege of the committee and [to take] necessary action as deemed fit” gives rise to a clear and present danger to the fundamental rights and liberties of petitioners, Mohan claimed in his petition.

Senior counsel Harish Salve, representing Mohan, submitted that right to free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution includes the right to remain silent. “I am not affecting the working of your committee. As a house, you may do whatever you want to do. But you cannot compel me to appear and give my views. I am not a public servant. I work for an American company. The matter involves serious issues with political overtones. I do not want to get into the middle of all this,” Salve said on behalf of the Facebook executive. Facebook India, through senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, submitted that a private party cannot be forced to appear before the assembly or parliament.

“Can a private person be asked to go before the Parliament and answer questions even if he does not want to do so? Can he be penalized if he does not appear?” Rohatgi asked.

Raghav Chadha, chairman of the committee, did not respond to requests for a comment.

Murali Krishnan

htreporters@hindustantimes.com

New delhi : The Delhi state assembly told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it had summoned Facebook India’s vice president and managing director Ajit Mohan only as a witness to hear his suggestions on devising a system to prevent misuse of the social media company in the backdrop of the misuse of the platform during the communal riots that flared in the city in February.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the legislature, said Mohan had not been summoned as an accused and no coercive action had been intended against the company or its officials.

“He was called as a witness, not as an accused. No coercive steps were intended. It had come to light that Facebook was misused (in connection with the communal riots). So, we want to get suggestions from them and devise a mechanism so that Facebook is not misused,” Singhvi said.

The apex court was hearing a petition filed by Facebook India and Mohan against notices issued by the Delhi assembly’s Peace and Harmony Committee on September 10 and 20 asking Mohan to present himself before the panel on Wednesday in connection with the social media company’s failure to curb hate speech that may have played a role in fuelling the Delhi riots.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said the notices issued to Mohan by the committee did not give an impression that no coercive action was intended against Facebook.

Singhvi offered to file a counter-affidavit clarifying the stance of the Delhi assembly. He also said the meeting of the committee, scheduled for Wednesday, had been deferred and no further meeting with Facebook officials on this subject will be held for the time being because the apex is seized of the case.

The court recorded Singhvi’s submissions, asked the Delhi assembly to file its response within a week and posted the case for further hearing on October 15.

The Peace and Harmony Committee, in a statement on Wednesday, said: “In view of the issues of law pending before the Supreme Court, today’s proceedings before the Delhi Legislative Assembly’s Committee on Peace & Harmony has been deferred. Further course of action and next date of sitting of committee will be notified in due course.”

The committee chairman Raghav Chadha could not be reached despite several phone calls and texts. The Delhi government did not react.

The committee is investigating Facebook’s alleged complicity in Delhi riots after it received several complaints from the public pursuant to 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, had alluded to the role allegedly played by top Facebook officials, particularly its public policy head Ankhi Das, in the social media platform refraining from applying its hate-speech rules to at least four individuals and groups linked to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) although the entities had been internally flagged for promoting or participating in violence. Das, according to the reports, said Facebook’s business interests may be harmed if it against them.

Mohan was first summoned by the committee on September 15 in connection with complaints alleging deliberate omissions and inaction by Facebook in removing hate speech. The committee had earlier said that in its meeting of August 31, it had prima facie (at first sight) found Facebook India was allegedly complicit in aggravating the communal violence in north-east Delhi in February that left at least 53 people dead and over 400 injured.

Facebook officials failed to appear for the September 15 meeting after which a second notice was issued on September 18 asking Mohan to appear before it on September 23 (Wednesday). Meanwhile, an article on BuzzFeed, which accessed an internal Facebook memo, cited instances of “politically sophisticated” attempts to influence the Delhi elections in February..

Facebook India and Mohan approached the top court on Tuesday, challenging the notices. They contended that the subject matter under investigation by the Delhi assembly falls within the exclusive domain of the central government and a state legislative assembly cannot compel witnesses to appear and provide evidence on such subjects.

It was also highlighted that regulation of intermediaries like Facebook falls within the Union list of the Constitution under the Entry “Communication” (Entry 31). Parliament, in exercise of that power, enacted the Information Technology Act, 2000 to regulate intermediaries. Any assessment of the veracity of allegations against Facebook as an intermediary is exclusively a Union government subject, it was submitted.

The petitioners also argued that the summons violate the right of the petitioner to remain silent and right to privacy, which are fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The committee’s insistence on compelling Mohan to speak, and its categorical threat that his non-appearance would be a “breach of privilege of the committee and [to take] necessary action as deemed fit” gives rise to a clear and present danger to the fundamental rights and liberties of petitioners, Mohan claimed in his petition.

Senior counsel Harish Salve, representing Mohan, submitted that right to free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution includes the right to remain silent. “I am not affecting the working of your committee. As a house, you may do whatever you want to do. But you cannot compel me to appear and give my views. I am not a public servant. I work for an American company. The matter involves serious issues with political overtones. I do not want to get into the middle of all this,” Salve said on behalf of the Facebook executive. Facebook India, through senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, submitted that a private party cannot be forced to appear before the assembly or parliament.

Raghav Chadha, chairman of the committee, did not respond to requests for a comment

Have something to say? Post your comment
 
More National News
तेलंगाना की राज्यपाल तमिलिसाई सुंदरराजन ने राज्यपाल के पद से दिया इस्तीफा गुजरात यूनिवर्सिटी में विदेशी छात्रों पर हमले का मामला, गृह राज्य मंत्री ने DG और CP को दिया कार्रवाई का आदेश तेलंगाना: लोकसभा चुनाव से पहले BRS सांसद डॉ रंजीत रेड्डी ने पार्टी से दिया इस्तीफा चुनाव में हिंसा का कोई स्थान नहीं, इसे रोकने के लिए सख्त कदम उठाएंगे: मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त PM मोदी आज कर्नाटक के कलबुर्गी में जनसभा को करेंगे संबोधित
लोकसभा चुनाव से पहले पीएम मोदी ने देशवासियों को लिखी चिठ्ठी,अपनी सरकार के महत्वपूर्ण कार्यों और उपलब्धियों का किया जिक्र
चुनाव आयोग शनिवार 16 मार्च को लोकसभा चुनाव की घोषणा करेगा,शनिवार दोपहर 3:00 बजे चुनाव आयोग की प्रेस कॉन्फ्रेंस,चुनाव आयोग ने दी जानकारी
बंगाल सीएम ममता बनर्जी को सिर पर लगी गंभीर चोट
राजेश कुमार गुप्ता और प्रियांश शर्मा भारत के चुनाव आयुक्त नियुक्त किए गये
आंध्र प्रदेश कांग्रेस उम्मीदवारों की स्क्रीनिंग कमेटी की आज दोपहर 2 बजे दिल्ली में होगी मीटिंग