Read Time: 08 minutes

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice G Narendar on Wednesday expressed its displeasure in the manner in which the matter related to Twitter MD Manish Maheshwari challenging the issuance of notice under section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 was reported by the media.

Before the hearing started, Justice G Narender while giving a word of caution said, “If there is a use of language not used in the court will not be taken lightly. This conduct is not acceptable. I thought I should mention this. But this kind of opinionated reporting is not permissible. In my court they are treated as officers of the court. It should be fair and accurate.”

Senior Advocate CV Nagesh appeared for Maheshwari and Senior Advocate Prasanna appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Senior Advocate Nagesh upon the investigator's stand that Maheshwari was avoiding investigation submitted that although he had nothing to do with it since he was only an employee, he still was ready to answer through video conferencing.

“I had sent a reply saying that I am only an employee and have nothing to do with it but still I said I am ready to answer through Video Conferencing.They say they have received my mail but they did not find my reasons adequate. Did I avoid them, did I run away... they are saying I am avoiding them. I said I am available through vc. This is a vindictive stand taken by the investigator,” said Senior Advocate CV Nagesh. 

While justifying his submissions with regards to the cause of action arising in Karnataka, reference was made to Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 

To support his contention, reference was made to the Apex Court judgement of Shanti Devi v. Union of India, Supreme Court case wherein the Court held that said that the cause of action should not be where a person dwells but where the land is situated, Delhi High Court judgement wherein the Court said the question of territorial jurisdiction should be decided from the averments of the petition. 

“The mere fact that an FIR has been registered in a state does not mean that a cause of action did  not arise in another state. Here I am a resident of Bangalore, working in Bangalore and notice is served to me through email when I am in Bangalore.,” Senior Advocate Nagesh added.

Yesterday, the Court had hit out on Uttar Pradesh Police for urging the production of Twitter Managing Director Manish Maheshwari for investigation in the FIR related to Ghaziabad video, without doing proper homework in the concerned matter.

Ghaziabad police had summoned Mr Maheshwari for questioning under Section 41 A of CrPC in relation to the FIR filed against Alt News Co-Founder Mohammed Zubair, Rana Ayyub, Saba Naqvi, the Wire & congress leaders Shama Mohammed, Salam Nizami & Maskoor Usmani at 11:20 PM on June 15, 2021 at PS Loni Border. Twitter Inc. & Twitter Communications Pvt. Ltd. were also named in the FIR for failing to take down/flag the tweets.

The police had given Maheshwari seven days to appear before the police and record his statement.

The  single judge bench of Justice G Narendar on June 24 had granted interim stay against notice issued by Uttar Pradesh Police to Twitter India’s employee Manish Maheshwari under Section  41A of CrPC. The court had however given liberty to the Police to investigate the petitioner through virtual mode.

The Government of Uttar Pradesh has filed a plea in the Supreme Court against the order of the Karnataka High Court which had granted Twitter India MD Manish Maheshwari protection from coercive action till the next date of hearing in the High Court.

Pursuant to Government of Uttar Pradesh’s appeal, Maheshwari had filed a Caveat in the Supreme Court amidst reports that Ghaziabad Police will move Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.

The matter will now be heard tomorrow.

Case Title: Manish Maheshwari v. State of UP| WP No 11028| 2021