Delhi High Court again pulls up Twitter for failing to comply with IT rules

The Delhi High Court on Thursday pulled up Twitter for non-compliance with the new IT Rules, while once again emphasising that “no interim protection” will be given to the micro-blogging site and the Centre was free to take any action if it breached the Indian law.

A single bench of Justice Rekha Palli questioned Twitter on using prefix “interim” in appointing Resident Grievance Officer, Chief Compliance Officer or Nodal officer.

The court directed Twitter to file an affidavit within two weeks stating that these interim officials would be fully responsible for Twitter’s conduct under IT Rules and would take responsibility of the tasks assigned to them.

It posted the matter for further hearing on July 28.

Also read: Twitter India MD seeks quashing of police notice asking him to appear in person

During the hearing, the court noted that the social media giant was already in violation of the May 26 deadline to comply with IT Rules.

Twitter had committed contempt of court by not filing a final affidavit despite having resolved to do so in the previous hearing, it pointed out.

“Won't protect you if Centre takes any action against you…You're actually in contempt as you didn't follow what you said that day…You're already in violation of deadline,” the judge told senior advocate Sajan Poovayya.

Also read: Striving to comply with IT rules, but reserve right to challenge their validity: Twitter to Delhi HC

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma submitted that no American court would've ever granted such leeway to pharma or an IT company.

“If they are in defiance, you are free to take action. I have already made it clear if they want to work, they have to follow rules," Justice Palli told Sharma.

Earlier in the day, Twitter filed a written document seeking eight weeks for the appointment of nodal and grievance officers to comply with Indian IT Rules. However, the social media giant said that it had a right to challenge the legality of the IT Rules, but maintained that it was striving to comply with Indian law.