Bengaluru: Twitter India MD Manish Maheshwari told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday that he is ready to appear in person in connection with a controversial video clip, and is ready to cooperate with the investigation, provided there is no threat of arrest. He was asked by the Ghaziabad police to appear in person.
Meanwhile, the Ghaziabad police came for some serious questioning from the HC, which apparently asked how it is “connected”. Twitter India was investigating the matter. The judge said that unless it is shown that the petitioner is not responsible for uploading or deleting the material, as far as the matter is concerned, he is none. Justice G Narendra wondered why the police could not gather information regarding the company from the articles of association, which are in the public domain. “The problem is you don’t want to investigate… on what basis are you saying Twitter India is responsible?” he said.
Maheshwari’s counsel also argued that the UP Police has no authority to issue notice to Maheshwari as he is not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company.
The MD of Twitter had on June 21 moved the High Court challenging the notice to appear for questioning on June 24.
Giving examples of charges under section 376 of the IPC in which the power to establish the case is relevant, Justice Narendra When asked whether there was a prima facie determination on whether Twitter India was responsible for the publication of the video clip or how the company could have stopped it. The judge asked the special public prosecutor, “How does the complainant connect Twitter India to this? What is the allegation against him (Twitter India)? Is it (the company) capable of removing the content? Was there any preliminary inquiry to find out? Went.” UP Police Representation
stating that Twitter India and Twitter Inc. There are two independent bodies, the court also wondered whether Twitter India was also an arbitrator. “The complainant is very clear that they are two independent bodies. So, where is the investigation, do they need to confirm compliance with the rules. Where is that material? Unless they are arbiters… there is no conclusive evidence of yours. By that they are also arbitrators,” the court observed.
Expressing surprise at the invoking of Section 79 of the IT Act relating to social media middlemen, the judge said, “Where are you going.”
Regarding the notice to Maheshwari, the court said, “It is not that he (Maheshwari) is defiant. He is very specific, clear. He says I have no control over uploading the video. At least before this court.” They have kept the material.”
Senior advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for Maheshwari, submitted that the petitioner is only an employee who has no control over the data of the users. He argued that the UP Police has no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 41A of CrPC as the position of the petitioner does not fit in it. He said that even under clause 3 of 41A, which states that in case of non-compliance, the petitioner cannot be arrested, the Inquiry Officer can still arrest the petitioner after recording the reasons and, therefore, “Damocles’ The sword of arrest” always hangs. Head of the petitioner.
Presented by UP Police, SPP P Prasanna Kumar Submitted that the notice was issued in a representative capacity and there was no “witch-hunt”. He said Twitter was playing “hide-and-seek” when the police only wanted to tell the petitioner who was the person in charge of the company in India.
Arguing that a foreign company with so many followers cannot exist without a head, he said that an FIR was registered by the UP Police regarding non-compliance of IT rules. Kumar further argued that the petition itself is not maintainable as no incident related to the UP Police case has taken place in Karnataka.
Nagesh replied that the petitioner is a resident of Bengaluru city and hence the petition is maintainable. The hearing will continue on Wednesday as well.
On June 15, the Ghaziabad Police took to Twitter Inc and twitter communication India, among other entities and individuals, for circulating a video of an elderly man being assaulted. On June 24, the HC had passed an interim order stating that no coercive action would be taken against Maheshwari. However, the UP Police was allowed to interrogate him over a video link.
Meanwhile, the Ghaziabad police came for some serious questioning from the HC, which apparently asked how it is “connected”. Twitter India was investigating the matter. The judge said that unless it is shown that the petitioner is not responsible for uploading or deleting the material, as far as the matter is concerned, he is none. Justice G Narendra wondered why the police could not gather information regarding the company from the articles of association, which are in the public domain. “The problem is you don’t want to investigate… on what basis are you saying Twitter India is responsible?” he said.
Maheshwari’s counsel also argued that the UP Police has no authority to issue notice to Maheshwari as he is not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company.
The MD of Twitter had on June 21 moved the High Court challenging the notice to appear for questioning on June 24.
Giving examples of charges under section 376 of the IPC in which the power to establish the case is relevant, Justice Narendra When asked whether there was a prima facie determination on whether Twitter India was responsible for the publication of the video clip or how the company could have stopped it. The judge asked the special public prosecutor, “How does the complainant connect Twitter India to this? What is the allegation against him (Twitter India)? Is it (the company) capable of removing the content? Was there any preliminary inquiry to find out? Went.” UP Police Representation
stating that Twitter India and Twitter Inc. There are two independent bodies, the court also wondered whether Twitter India was also an arbitrator. “The complainant is very clear that they are two independent bodies. So, where is the investigation, do they need to confirm compliance with the rules. Where is that material? Unless they are arbiters… there is no conclusive evidence of yours. By that they are also arbitrators,” the court observed.
Expressing surprise at the invoking of Section 79 of the IT Act relating to social media middlemen, the judge said, “Where are you going.”
Regarding the notice to Maheshwari, the court said, “It is not that he (Maheshwari) is defiant. He is very specific, clear. He says I have no control over uploading the video. At least before this court.” They have kept the material.”
Senior advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for Maheshwari, submitted that the petitioner is only an employee who has no control over the data of the users. He argued that the UP Police has no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 41A of CrPC as the position of the petitioner does not fit in it. He said that even under clause 3 of 41A, which states that in case of non-compliance, the petitioner cannot be arrested, the Inquiry Officer can still arrest the petitioner after recording the reasons and, therefore, “Damocles’ The sword of arrest” always hangs. Head of the petitioner.
Presented by UP Police, SPP P Prasanna Kumar Submitted that the notice was issued in a representative capacity and there was no “witch-hunt”. He said Twitter was playing “hide-and-seek” when the police only wanted to tell the petitioner who was the person in charge of the company in India.
Arguing that a foreign company with so many followers cannot exist without a head, he said that an FIR was registered by the UP Police regarding non-compliance of IT rules. Kumar further argued that the petition itself is not maintainable as no incident related to the UP Police case has taken place in Karnataka.
Nagesh replied that the petitioner is a resident of Bengaluru city and hence the petition is maintainable. The hearing will continue on Wednesday as well.
On June 15, the Ghaziabad Police took to Twitter Inc and twitter communication India, among other entities and individuals, for circulating a video of an elderly man being assaulted. On June 24, the HC had passed an interim order stating that no coercive action would be taken against Maheshwari. However, the UP Police was allowed to interrogate him over a video link.
.