Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The social media giant Twitter on Tuesday informed the Delhi High Court that as an intermediary it cannot determine whether content on its platform is legal or not and that it only takes action when notified to do so by a court or the relevant authority.

A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad adjourned the matter to October after the counsel for the petitioner sought time to go through the affidavit.

Twitter made the submissions in an affidavit that it submitted in response to a complaint against the distribution of allegedly offensive content regarding a Hindu goddess. The plea has been filed in view of the alleged obnoxious posts on 'Maa Kaali' by user 'AtheistRepublic'.

The bench was hearing a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate Aditya Deshwal who argued that several objectionable posts were being made through a Twitter handle named Atheist Republic and despite several complaints, Twitter has neither suspended the account nor taken down the offending content.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for Twitter informed the bench that the objectionable content has been taken down from its platform.

Earlier, the High Court had pulled up social media platform Twitter for not taking action and suspending accounts that post ‘blasphemous’ and objectionable content about Hindu gods and goddesses

It may be noted that a complaint has also been registered with DCP Cyber Cell, New Delhi, by Aditya Singh Deshwal, against Twitter India, Manish Maheshwari, a Twitter handle @AtheistRepublic Shagufta Kamran and founder, CEO of the Atheist Republic for putting out objectionable content against Hindu Goddess Kali.

"After going through the post of the user Atheist Republic, it can be easily concluded that it is a deliberate attempt on the part of user to willfully outrage & hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus in order to promote religious animosity amongst the people of this country," the complaint had stated.

Case Title:  Aditya Singh Deshwal v Union of India and Ors.