Centre’s decision to block ‘Hindutva Watch’ a/c disproportionate: X

Centre’s decision to block ‘Hindutva Watch’ a/c disproportionate: X
x
Highlights

The court was hearing a petition by journalist Raqib Hameed, founder of Hindutva Watch, seeking to quash the Centre’s blocking order issued under the Information Technology Act

New Delhi : The Centre’s decision to block the entire social media account of ‘Hindutva Watch’ on the basis of certain alleged offending posts is “disproportionate” and contrary to the law, social media giant ‘X’ has told the Delhi High Court.

X Corp. (formerly known as Twitter), in an affidavit filed in a case, informed the court that there are no reasons recorded in the ‘blocking order’ of the government which issued the order to block the account of ‘Hindutva Watch’ despite the objections raised by the intermediary.

“It is admitted that respondent no. 1’s (Centre) non-disclosure of relevant material to the affected party renders the right to be heard meaningless, as the affected party is unaware of the evidence against them and cannot adequately explain or rebut it,” X said.

The court was hearing a petition by journalist Raqib Hameed, founder of Hindutva Watch, seeking to quash the Centre’s blocking order issued under the Information Technology Act. The order was issued to block the petitioner’s entire X account @HindutvaWatchIn. The plea also sought an order directing the central government to produce the relevant records for blocking the petitioner’s account, including the required orders/ findings of the Review Committee under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

It further sought to direct social media platform ‘X’ to immediately restore access to the petitioner’s X account @HindutvaWatchIn. Hindutva Watch, as per its website, is a media and research initiative committed to documenting hate crimes and hate speech targeting India’s religious minorities and marginalised groups. The government blocked its X account in January this year. X, in its affidavit in response to the petition, admitted that a possible and less rights-infringing approach would involve the removal of specific posts, if found to be in violation of the law.

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENTS