Plea Filed for Criminal Action Against Twitter for Promoting Khalistan Movement in Delhi High Court

Must Read

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Follow us

Excerpt

A Petition had been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking criminal action against Twitter India and its representative. This was regarding their involvement in the conspiracy to promote the Khalistan Movement (Sangeeta Sharma vs UOI). 

Brief Facts

Sangeeta Sharma was the Petitioner. She had sought a direction for lodging a case against Twitter Communications India Pvt Ltd. It also included the officials Raheel Khurshid and Mahima KaulThis was for the commission of Offences under Section 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Sections 107, 121A, 124A, 153A, 153b and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code were also included. Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was considered. The Petition stated that Respondent No 5 (Twitter Communications India) was the culprit of spreading Khalistani movement. It also spread the anti-national agenda to the public at large.

Contentions

The Petitioner had asserted that in the absence of a mechanism to regulate content/news on social media, the Twitter platform was being used to call upon ‘separatists’. This was “creating panic in some sections of the society, challenging the unity, integrity and sovereignty of Union of India”. Twitter’s servers were used for the promotion of ‘#Khalistan’. There were still many users who were having their user name as Khalistan or similar to Khalistan. This was to promote anti-national activity. The Petitioner had claimed that Twitter had “abetted” the act of the separatists. Twitter had done this by accepting financial gratification and paid advertisements. The brazen attack on sovereignty and integrity of India on the Twitter platform was a detriment to the citizens as a whole.

The Petitioner had also submitted that MP Anantkumar Hedge had raised the issue of Twitter’s “anti-national acts”. However, Twitter did not take any “serious action”. It was further claimed that the management of Twitter India was not neutral. The platform was “unabashedly and unequivocally” against the present government. The Petitioner had sought an investigation by the National Investigating Agency into the said matter. This was to be against those who were promoting pro-Khalistan messages on Twitter. A direction was also sought to Central Government to check and regulate content and advertisement on social media. 

Court’s Decision

The matter was listed for hearing before a Division Bench. The Division Bench included Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan. The Chief Justice directed the matter to be placed before the Division Bench headed by Justice Hima Kohli. The next hearing would be on September 30.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by the Exporters Association before the...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -