Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, July 6: Admonishing Twitter India for inordinate delay in appointing a Resident Grievance Officer as an acceptance of following the law of the land, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that Twitter could not be permitted to take indefinite time and gave it two days to decide specific timeline for appointing the officer.
The court said it expected the micro-blogging site to inform it on Thursday about its stand “regarding complying with all other provisions” of IT Rules, 2021.
Justice Rekha Palli said that the micro-blogging site should have made an appointment by now, and pulled it up for making a “misleading” statement before the court on May 31. Twitter had told the court that a Resident Grievance Officer was appointed on May 28. The bench said that it was never informed that the appointment was actually an interim arrangement.
“It’s been more than two weeks…If the interim Grievance Officer ran away on June 21, the least Twitter was expected to do was to appoint a fresh officer in these 14 days before the matter came up today,” Justice Rekha Palli remarked.
Twitter admitted that it was currently not in compliance with the 2021 IT Rules as it was in the process of appointing its Grievance Officer and the Nodal Officer.
“How long does the process of appointing a Grievance Officer take? If Twitter thinks it can take as much time as it wants in our country, I will not permit that,” Justice Palli cautioned the micro-blogging site.
Justice Palli directed Twitter’s counsel to come up with a clear picture of the compliance timeline by July 8, the next date of hearing. “Otherwise you [Twitter] are in trouble,” the judge warned.
Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, representing Twitter, conceded before the court that Twitter at present was not in compliance with the IT Rules. Poovayya told the court that a practicing lawyer was appointed as an interim grievance officer and he continued for three weeks.
“He then indicated… that because the Union said they will not accept a non-employee as a grievance officer and also to be fair to his lawyer, he realised that there is a lot of precipitation which he need not put his neck into. He has now withdrawn his consent and Twitter is in the process of appointing a new grievance officer,” submitted Poovayya.
However, the court said the rules are binding on Twitter and that it has been more than two weeks since the person left the position. “To that extent, Twitter is in defiance of the rules,” added the court.
In response to the court’s query regarding the time period Twitter would take to make the appointment, the counsel representing it submitted that since it was the middle of the night in San Francisco, where the micro-blogging site is headquartered, they would need a day’s time to get the specific instructions.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Centre, submitted that the IT Rules were notified on February 25 and there was a three months window for compliance. “That expired on the 26th of May. We are on the 6th of July… it is either a 41-day or 42-day complete non-compliance,” Sharma submitted.
Sharma further contended that Twitter was “most welcome” and “free” to do business in India. We have “done nothing” despite 42-day non-compliance, he submitted.
“The attitude and this prevarication cocks a snook at the digital sovereignty of this country,” argued Sharma, adding, “sometimes it is made out as if we are some sort of big brother”.
However, the court observed, “you don’t need to say that in court. This is not the forum for what you are saying. I don’t think you are making these submissions for me”. The bench also said that it was not providing any protection to Twitter and told the Centre, “If they are in violation, you know what to do”.
The Centre on Monday, in a written reply, told the court that the IT Rules, 2021 are the “law of the land” and Twitter is “mandatorily” required to comply with them. It also told the court that Twitter has failed to fully comply with the rules and such failure results in the micro-blogging site losing the immunity granted to intermediaries under the law.
Twitter had initially appointed an interim Resident Grievance Officer and an interim Nodal Contact Person but it later informed the State that both the officers have resigned from their positions. The grievances from India in the interim are apparently being handled by Twitter’s personnel from the USA which amounts to non-compliance with the IT rules, the Centre said in its reply.
As of July 1, the Centre said Twitter had failed to comply with the rules on four counts, Chief Compliance Officer has not been appointed; the position of the Resident Grievance Officer is vacant; the position of the Nodal Contact Person is vacant and the physical contact address, which was shown to be there on May 29, is once again “not available” on Twitter’s website.
“Any non-compliance amounts to a breach of the provisions of the IT Rules, 2021 thereby leading to (Twitter Inc) losing its immunity conferred under Section 79(1) of the IT Act, 2001,” reads the reply further.
Twitter in a reply last week told the court that it was in the final stages of appointing a Resident Grievance Officer after the person engaged as interim arrangement withdrew his candidature on June 21. Twitter had appointed an interim Resident Grievance Officer in May and uploaded his details on the website but even before the steps could be taken to completely formalize the petition, he withdrew his candidature, according to the reply.
The petition, filed by a lawyer Amit Acharya through advocates Akash Vajpai and Manish Kumar, stated that on May 26, Acharya came across “defamatory, false and untrue” tweets on Twitter made by two verified users and wanted to raise a grievance against them before the resident grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021. “However, the petitioner was unable to find the contact details of the Resident Grievance on the website of Twitter … for raising his grievance,” it was alleged in the petition.
The petition also contends that the petitioner has a legal and statutory right under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Ethics Code) Rules 2021 to raise complaints against any defamatory, untrue and false tweets or post on Twitter before its resident grievance officer as it is a significant social media intermediary. Twitter has argued the ground is “incorrect and denied.”
In response, the micro-blogging site has also told the court that it was incumbent on the petitioner to wait for a reasonable time before preferring the plea. It has further told the court that the complaint has been considered and disposed of since filing of the petition and thus nothing survives in it.
“Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by Tweets…However, the authors of those Tweets have not impleaded as Respondents. Petitioner cannot seek any relief which directly or indirectly touches upon those Tweets without impleading the authors of the Tweets and for this reason alone, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed,” reads the reply.
