• About
  • Contcat Us
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

As intermediary we cannot decide if content is lawful or not: Twitter states Delhi High Court

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
September 6, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 2 mins read
0
0
As intermediary we cannot decide if content is lawful or not: Twitter states Delhi High Court

As intermediary we cannot decide if content is lawful or not: Twitter states Delhi High Court

0
SHARES
5
VIEWS

Twitter has informed the Delhi High Court in the case of Aditya Singh Deshwal v. Union of India & Ors that, as an intermediary, it is unable to determine whether any content on its platform is legal or not unless put to “actual knowledge” after being determined by the appropriate government or judicial system.

The social media behemoth claimed that the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case defined “actual knowledge” to imply either a court order or a notification by the government or its agency.

It went on to say that content can also be taken down from Twitter for breaking the platform’s rules of service.

READ ALSO

Chhota Rajan Files suit in Bombay HC Against Netflix Series Scoop Demands ₹1 as Damages for Violation of Personality Rights

Kerala High Court Upholds Right of Accused to Surrender, Rejects Refusal of Permission by Courts with Appropriate Jurisdiction

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [IT Rules 2021] have no effect on this contractual right, Twitter noted in response.

It was also mentioned that the Delhi High Court was already debating whether or not a writ petition against Twitter was valid and that the Bench in that case had already had a portion of a hearing on the subject.

The response was provided in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Aditya Deshwal highlighting the fact that several objectionable posts were being made through the Twitter account Atheist Republic, and that despite numerous complaints, Twitter has not suspended the account or removed the offensive content.

When even the account of former US President Donald Trump was suspended, the High Court expressed its displeasure with Twitter’s behaviour and questioned the social media company about why it did not take action and suspend accounts that post offensive and ‘blasphemous’ content about Hindu gods and goddesses.

The US-based social media juggernaut claims that a writ petition filed against it cannot be upheld because it is not a “State” as that term is defined in Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

It contended that it is a private middleman and that, according to relevant legislation, only when a user accepts its Terms of Service can they use its services.

Tuesday, a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad heard the petition of Deshwal.

Senior attorney Sidharth Luthra attended on behalf of Twitter and said that practically all of the petition’s requests had been granted.

He claimed that the offensive posts had been deleted, a FIR had been filed against the violators, and the account had also been suspended.

On October 28, the Court scheduled the case for further consideration.

Tags: Atheist Republicdelhi high courtsuspension of Twitter accountTwitter
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

Chhota Rajan Files Lawsuit in Bombay High Court Against Netflix Series 'Scoop,' Demands ₹1 as Damages for Violation of Personality Rights
News

Chhota Rajan Files suit in Bombay HC Against Netflix Series Scoop Demands ₹1 as Damages for Violation of Personality Rights

June 1, 2023
Kerala High Court Upholds Right of Accused to Surrender, Rejects Refusal of Permission by Courts with Appropriate Jurisdiction
News

Kerala High Court Upholds Right of Accused to Surrender, Rejects Refusal of Permission by Courts with Appropriate Jurisdiction

June 1, 2023
The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.
News

The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.

April 24, 2023
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

February 24, 2023
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

February 24, 2023
pocso act
News

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

February 23, 2023

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • important sections in contact while drafting contact

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Analysis of Contract Law, Social Norms, and Inter-Firm Cooperation

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Telangana High Court has ruled that notice under section 41A is required for offences punishable by up to seven years 

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In