Introduction

The parley over the social media networking sites and the government has been vehement and clamorous, however, Twitter in particular with India’s government over the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, has been defined by two distinct recitals.

For one narrative the dispute lies on compromising the Indian sovereignty and focuses on the arrogance of a foreign company that ignores our laws. While the other proposes the act to be a wicked and criminal endeavour to vanquish dissent and free speech. It cannot be discredited that for any company/organization operating within the Indian Territory, it is essential for the said organization/company to comply with Indian Law. The basic business tenets enshrined in various international treaties also endorse the said mandate. Moreover, the right course of action for Twitter should be inclined towards legal remedies available to it, if it finds the Intermediary Guidelines to be unconstitutional, and not ignoring the law, showcasing the rejection merely on grounds of obstinacy.

Further, Twitter is an independent private company operating in the Indian Territory, and hence, is qualified to frame and implement policies and rules for those who wish to use its platform, as long as these rules and regulations don’t violate the Indian laws. The considerable point of argument is that Twitter has complied with the spirit of the Intermediary Guidelines by appointing a Resident Grievance Officer, however, it is restraining itself from appointing permanent employees as resident grievance and nodal officers, which is the literal requirement of the law.

What can a Resident Grievance Officer help?

A Resident Grievance Officer will deal with and resolve the complaints received from India as per law. This is notwithstanding if the said Resident Grievance Officer is a permanent employee or on a contract or for that matter on deputation.

The question one may ask is what is stopping Twitter to appoint the said Resident Grievance Officer as a permanent employee as per the mandate of the Intermediary Guidelines. The most plausible explanation to it might be due to a raid conducted by the law enforcement agencies on its offices and further to give in a letter in a dispute which arose due to labeling of a tweet by a prominent member of India’s ruling party.

The state of affairs makes one wonder about the futuristic stance of the Indian Government on the present shindig with Twitter. Further, the Government of India might stand stiff on its stance and insist upon Twitter to follow the mandate prescribed in the guideline, or shall it lose the status of an intermediary. However, if the status of intermediary is revoked, it shall be an unfaltering exit for Twitter from India to the fashion similar to the exit of Coca-Cola when it was asked to share the secret formula of its drink. This might impact and strain Indian relations with the US. Such a crude exit of Twitter, a platform having a lot to do with the constitutional right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, shall further reduce our rankings on global democratic and freedom indices.

Conclusion

Thus, it is advisable for courts to interfere as there is an arguable case that the guidelines are excessively broad and possibly unconstitutional. In short, Twitter must comply with Indian law, while the law and Indian government must comply with India’s Constitution and act with caution.

 

Read more blogs @advocatetanwar.com

One Reply to “The Social Media Skirmish”

  1. Hey there! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you if that would be ok. I’m undoubtedly enjoying your blog and look forward to new updates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.

Disclaimer

The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.