SC seeks Centre's reply on removing online posts without alerting account user

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 3) issued a notice to the Centre observing that social media posts cannot be taken down without alerting the individuals who have published them.

The notice for removal can be served solely to the intermediary (social media platform) only when these people can’t be identified, the SC added on Monday.

"Prima facie, we both feel that if there is an identifiable person then a notice should be issued," said the two judge bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih.

The court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO Software Freedom Law Centre that contended that intermediaries like X often took down tweets on government orders without informing the account owner.

The petition claimed that the rules 8, 9 and 16 of the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, gave the government unrestricted power to take down social media posts and accounts of users without prior notice given to the ‘originator’, or the original poster.

Senior counsel Indira Jaisingh appeared for the petitioner.

Also read: Who controls the news we consume? Does legacy media matter any more?

Also read: SC allows Ranveer Allahbadia to resume his show

Validity of IT Rules under question

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 8 in the IT law - which makes the issuance of a blocking request notice to the account owner or originator optional - places unguided discretion in the hands of the authorities who have the power to decide whether the originator will be informed of the takedown of their information from social media.

Such a rule violates the originator’s Constitutional right to be heard before their content is blocked, said the petitioners.

Also read: Swara Bhasker slams social media platform X for suspending her account permanently

A similar question was raised over Rule 9 that acts as an emergency provision to block a user’s content without prior notification, denying them of any mechanism of relief due to a lack of a prior notice, a reasoned order and the chance to be heard.

They added that Rules 8, 9 and 16 therefore violate Article 14 (Equality), 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech) and 21 (Life and Personal Liberty).

Counsel provides clarity on petition

Senior Counsel Indira Singh said that while she acknowledges the government has the power to take down information, a due notice must be given to the originator of the post online. She contended that not doing so was a violation of the principles of natural justice.

According to reports, she also cited an example of the Supreme Court senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, whose X account was suspended for years without any prior notice.

Watch: Sanjay Hegde interview: ‘Textbook undermining of court in Uttar Pradesh'

Indira Singh said, “Yes, a senior lawyer of this court, Mr Sanjay Hegde's X account was taken down. No notice, and for years it was not made online. I am not giving personal examples.. but this is in the public domain.”

The top court has proceeded to seek the government’s response to the plea.