Delhi High Court grants 4-weeks' time to Twitter to file reply in Abhijit Iyer’s plea for restoration of his Twitter Account

Justice Prateek Jalan of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted four weeks to Twitter to file a reply on a plea filed by Research Scholar Abhijit Iyer Mitra against the ‘suspension of his Twitter Account’ after he put a tweet about the Supreme Court granting bail to Mohammad Zubair. Mitra has sought restoration of his Twitter account.

During the hearing, Advocate Raghav Awasthi for Mitra contended that summon was issued in the case on November 1, and it was listed before the Joint Registrar on December 12, despite giving four weeks' time to file a reply, Twitter failed to do so.

Awasthi also contended, “I (Mitra) am a defence analyst and in this case…especially with the tension growing on in the Tawang border, as a defence analyst it is important that I air my views so that the Indian point of view also goes across”.

To this, Justice Jalan said, “Ofocurse you are entitled to air our views, but your view is not necessarily the Indian point of view. You can have your view, don’t allocate to yourself the responsibility of airing the Indian point of view.”

“India is not a monolith, lots of Indians have different views on lots of issues, each one of them is entitled to have their views, including you (Mitra)”, he added.

On being asked why Twitter hasn’t replied to the plea, the counsel for Twitter contended that as Elon Musk has purchased Twitter, the delay is because of that. He added that there have been layoffs and because of that there have been delays in filing the reply. The counsel sought a month's time to file the reply.

Taking note of the submissions, the single-judge bench granted four weeks to Twitter to file a reply and directed counsel for Mitra to file a counter-affidavit within one week of the filing of reply. Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on February 15, 2023.

On November 1, Justice Mini Pushkarna issued summons to Twitter on Abhijit Iyer Mitra’s plea on the ‘suspension of his Twitter Account’.

During the course of the hearing till now, Advocates Raghav Awasthi & Mukesh Sharma for Mitra contended that their client is a renowned public figure and in July 2022 he had posted about who took surety of Alt-News Co-founder Mohammad Zubair’s bail bond. It was submitted that merely on this, access to Mitra’s Twitter followers has been curtailed, and added that the same had been done without following the procedure that has been laid down in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appearing for Twitter contended that Mitra’s account had been kept on ‘read-only mode’ due to one tweet he made in July which is violative. Poovayya stated that if Mitra deletes that particular tweet, his account can come back to normalcy. Poovayya further stated that Mitra’s case is that he will not delete the tweet and seeks restoration of his Twitter account, and for the same, he sought time to file a short affidavit.

After Zubair was granted bail by the Supreme Court in July 2022, when Mitra got to know that Srinivasan Jain, Journalist NDTV had stood surety to Mohammad Zubair in his bail, he had tweeted, “…presiding judges son on NDTV, NDTV editor furnishes bail bond of “close friend”, wherein he attached images of the Affidavit and Bail Bond (showing Jain as the surety) which contained some private information like phone numbers, addresses of parties.

Thereafter he immediately removed the personal information, and tweeted "Reposting minus the 'private info'. I'm sure Twitter will find some way of protecting its resident in-house jihadist his aiders abettors." Consequently, Twitter unilaterally banned Mitra’s account, making it completely inaccessible for him to engage with his 1.5 lakh followers, without any explanation or show cause notice.

Mitra in his plea filed through Advocates Mukesh Sharma, Abhay Chitrvanshi, and Kunal Tiwari sought a mandatory injunction in his favor, and against Twitter for reinstatement of his Twitter account.

The plea stated that Twitter committed gross negligence in the performance of its duties (as provided by the rules) as a social intermediary as a result of non-compliance with Rule 3 of the Intermediary Rules, 2021(1) (b) read with Rule 4 (8) prior to removing the right of the Plaintiff's right to communicate freely and unrestrictedly with his fans, admirers, well-wishers, and most importantly, the public at large, resulting in reputational, professional, economic, and social ramifications to him.

“The rules framed by the Union of India would assume primacy over any one-sided unconscionable agreement that might have been entered into between Defendant No.1 and visitors willing to use its platform requiring every unlawful action taken in violation thereof to be reversed. More particularly, the same also runs counter to the spirit of free speech and expression permeating every guideline, law, and policy of India leaving a dangerous Chilling Effect on the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed u/Art.19(1) (a) of the Constitution so as to invite action against Defendant No.1 (Twitter) as per law by the Defendant No.2(Union of India),” the plea read.

Case Title: Abhijit Iyer Mitra v. Twitter Communications India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.