SC seeks Centre’s reply on AAP Gujarat plea over suspension of social media accounts
The Supreme Court sought the Centre's response on AAP Gujarat's plea challenging the suspension of its social media accounts and web portal, while hearing petitions questioning blocking orders issued without prior notice under provisions of the Information Technology Act
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Centre’s response on a plea by the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) Gujarat unit challenging the suspension of its social media accounts and web portal. A bench of justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice on the interlocutory application and the main plea filed by the party. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the AAP, said that it is the opposition party in Gujarat and its social media handles have been blocked.
He sought issuance of notice on the interlocutory application for interim relief and the main petition filed by the party. The bench, which was hearing matters challenging the action of blocking social media accounts and posts without issuing notice to the user, allowed all the intervention applications and issued notice in all the matters.
The bench said a short date will be notified for hearing of the matter including the main PIL filed by NGO Software Freedom Law Center. It asked Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the Centre, to prepare a convenience note for the court which party was aggrieved with what action and provisions.
Dave said that the court may see after the filing of the note, whether there are any overlapping issues involved and detag the matters, which do not have commonality. On May 8, the top court tagged the AAP’s plea with the matter without issuing the notice.
The party has contended that section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, which has been invoked by the authorities, was not applicable as it is a safe harbour provision for the intermediary.
In its plea, the party has questioned the legal basis for the blocking and suspension of its social media accounts and a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) was not a source of power for authorities to direct the blocking of information.
The plea also seeks a declaration that all consequential directions, rules and notifications issued under the provision, insofar as they relate to the blocking of information, are void.
The AAP has sought the quashing of the directions allegedly issued by law enforcement authorities for blocking or suspending the social media accounts of the party. On March 3, last year, the top court agreed to examine a plea over the issue of blocking of social media accounts or content without an opportunity to be heard to the creator or originator.
It has sought Centre’s response on the petition for quashing Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Petitioner NGO Software Freedom Law Center has contended that no notices were given to the “originator” of the information and a notice was only sent to platforms like X.
