Harassed by BJP IT Cell co-convener, Twitter India moves to SC for quashing of multiple FIRs
Twitter Inc. made a plea before the Supreme Court of India for quashing multiple FIRs against it, alleging harassment by
Harassed by BJP IT Cell co-convener, Twitter India moves to SC for quashing of multiple FIRs Strap- Twitter Inc. made a plea before the Supreme Court of India for quashing multiple FIRs against it, alleging harassment by the national co-convener of BJP IT Cell A plea was made by Twitter Communications India Pvt. Ltd.(Petitioner) whereby it sought quashing of multiple FIRs against the...
Harassed by BJP IT Cell co-convener, Twitter India moves to SC for quashing of multiple FIRs
Strap- Twitter Inc. made a plea before the Supreme Court of India for quashing multiple FIRs against it, alleging harassment by the national co-convener of BJP IT Cell
A plea was made by Twitter Communications India Pvt. Ltd.(Petitioner) whereby it sought quashing of multiple FIRs against the entity. It stated that Vinit Goenka (Respondent), the national co-convener of the BJP IT cell, had called upon many users of the petitioner to file cases against it with a mala fide intention of threatening, harassing, and intimidating the entity.
Petitioner alleged that several FIRs were lodged against it after a person named Gurpat want Singh Pannum tweeted a poll titled "whether India should recognize Khalistan 2020". It was stated in the plea that the respondent along with other complainants who had taken financial consideration to promote Mr Pannum's tweet was harassing the petitioner. However, it had blocked the tweet and suspended his account.
It was contented by the petitioner that the respondent and his supporters conducted many webinars asking its supporter to declare the entity as a terrorist organization. Respondent further ensured that Twitters' officials should be charged with sedition and he encourages the filing of multiple FIRs against Twitter and its employees.
Petitioner denied the entire allegation stating it to be baseless and frivolous and contented that the entity has no role in determining its Ad policy and that it collected no revenue for the content promoted on the platform. Citing Arnab Goswami's case, the petitioner asked for consolidation of all the FIRs filed against it and quashing of the same.
In the proceedings conducted through video-conferencing, the bench, headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, issued notices on the plea to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and Karnataka, Assam, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha and the Police Commissioner of Delhi.
It concluded that "there cannot be multiple FIRs for one incident and sought their quashing."