Twitter can’t seek rights available to citizens: Govt in HC

Subject :Polity

Section : Pollution

The decision on “whether content will cause national security or public order issues or not should not be allowed to be determined by the platforms,’’ the Central government had argued in the counter to a petition filed by Twitter Inc in the Karnataka High Court against a series of orders to block content on the platform that has been issued by the center in the year 2021.
Twitter had moved the court earlier this year with a plea to quash 10 orders issued in the year 2021 by the Centre to block as many as 39 accounts or to restrict the orders to specific tweets which violate Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Centre has argued in its counter that Twitter not being natural person and not even being an artificial person founded under Indian law cannot claim rights under Article 19 and further cannot claim the vast expanse of rights under Article 14 or Article 21 either for itself or on behalf of its users
If the Twitter fails to comply with the directions issued by the Government under Section 69A of IT Act, 2000, then it’s intermediary status is liable to be withdrawn

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000

It empowers the central government to block the online content and arrest the culprit. This is the primary law that deals with cyber-crime and electronic commerce in India.
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act has given many power to the central government. Read sections of the act;

Issue direction to remove objectionable content on social media and any other website.
To block the online content in the wake of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, defence of India, friendly relations with foreign States.
The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out shall be such as may be prescribed.
The concerned authorities failing to comply with the direction (sub-section 1) issued might be punished with imprisonment for a term up to to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

The apex court said that the Centre can exercise its power to issue directions to block an internet site, saying there are adequate procedural safeguards. The court also said that national security is above individual privacy.
As we know that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 allows the central government to tap phones. The Supreme Court had given a verdict in 1996 and said that the government can tap phones only in case of a “public emergency”.
But in the case of Section 69 of the IT Act, no such restriction is imposed by the Supreme Court.
Recently the government of India had banned many Chinese apps citing the provisions of Section 69A of the information technology act, 2000.

Intermediaries as per the IT Act 2000:

Intermediary is defined in Section 2(1) (w) of the IT Act 2000.
The term ‘intermediaries’ includes providers of telecom service, network service, Internet service and web hosting, besides search engines, online payment and auction sites, online marketplaces and cyber cafes.
It includes any person who, on behalf of another, “receives, stores or transmits” any electronic record. Social media platforms would fall under this definition.
Section 79 of the IT Act 2000 makes it clear that “an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him”.
Section 79 provides that an intermediary would lose its immunity if upon receiving actual knowledge or on being notified that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by it is being used to commit an unlawful act and it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material.