No basic affirmation of facts by UP Police: K'taka HC on notice to Twitter India MD in Gzb FIR

Bengaluru/New Delhi: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday lashed out at the UP Police for insisting on the appearance of Twitter India's Managing Director Manish Maheshwari for investigation in the FIR related to Ghaziabad video, without ascertaining even the basic facts about his and Twitter India's culpability in the matter.

Justice G Narender noted that the crux of the matter is that a doctored video was uploaded on the Twitter platform, however, Twitter India may not be connected with the alleged incident. "Whether Twitter India is capable of controlling the content?" the Judge specifically asked.

"What is the allegation against Twitter India? There must be substance to say that Twitter India is capable of removing it? How does the complainant connect Twitter India? Don't bring in IT Rules now. IT Rules will not come here," the Judge lashed out at UP Police's counsel asking him not to mix up Twitter India and Twitter INC.

He continued: "Have you even been able to make a prima facie determination that Twitter India is responsible or is even in control to stop this act? Have you done this? Whether Twitter India claims to be an intermediary? Even this basic affirmation of fact is not done."

Senior advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for the Twitter MD, informed the Bench that the social media giant's Indian counterpart does not come under Section 79 (Intermediaries) of the IT Act.

"Then where are you heading," the Judge asked the UP Police. The Bench proceeded to observe that the UP Police has not even shown if Twitter was in a position to prevent the alleged incident.

It orally remarked: "Is there anything to show there is some omission by Twitter. If there is an allegation under Section 376, potency is relevant. You are investigating against the company. To investigate you are required to identify the individual. But if the entity is not able to commit such action then where is the point. This petition is nothing unless you can show he could have prevent it."

During the course of hearing, senior advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for the Twitter MD, had argued that Maheshwari is merely an employee of the company and he had no control over the video of the Ghaziabad incident being shared in Twitter by certain journalists and politicians.

UP Police, on the other hand, claimed the 41A notice was issued to the petitioner only in a representative capacity and their aim is to merely identify Twitter India head, for which they seek the petitioner's cooperation.

"You (UP Police) issued notice under Section 160 CrPC he has responded saying he has no control over the content and pleaded inability. Have you even ascertained whether Twitter India is capable of controlling the content," the Court observed.

The Bench was also addressed on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, in as much as the alleged incident is said to have taken place in Uttar Pradesh.

The Court will continue the hearing on Wednesday. It is hearing a writ petition filed by Maheshwari challenging the notice issued to him by the UP Police under Section 41A CrPC asking him to appear for investigation in relation to the FIR over the circulation of Ghaziabad assault video. With agency inputs