Bengaluru: High Court of Karnataka Reloaded at police notice on Friday for Twitter India MD Manish Maheshwari appeared in connection with the investigation, calling it Mala Fide and “playing arm” method “.
The police in Ghaziabad, who had issued the notice, said they were waiting for a copy of the order.
“We will receive a telephone just after passing it,” said Ghaziabad SSP Amit Kumar Pathak.
This notice was issued on June 21 under the CRPC part 41-A, four days after the initial notification below Section 160, asked Maheshwari to report at the Loni border police station on June 24 about video sensitive to users on Twitter.
Maheshwari moved Karnataka HC when he lived in Bengaluru.
Dispose of Maheshwari Petition, Justice G Narendar said the notice must be read under the CRPC 160 section, and if the officer inquiry desires to secure any statement or information, the police can question MD’s Indian Twitter through a video link or meet the residential address or office.
On June 24, HC has directed the police not to take coercive action against Maheshwari and stated that he could be questioned through video conferencing.
“The action of the respondent (in the police) tried to beg for part 41-a no doubt in the mind of the court that it was used as a twisted arm method when the applicant refused to heed the notification issued under the CRPC SEC 160.
The respondent concluded it as a brave rejection action On his command (sic), “the judge noted in his demands.
In the long order dictated more than five hours, the judge shows that the notification threatens the punishment and seizure of freedom, which is indeed a fundamental right.
He noted that failure to obey would result in the seizure of the freedom of the Applicant, and, if he obeyed, it would still limit his daily activities vis-a-vis to his profession by forcing him to travel to the point of Ghaziabad.
Criticizing the Police Approach at the Introduction Investigation Phase and the method used to secure a note in the public domain, the judge took the exception to what he called “unpleasant silence in connection with the benefits” and the effort to persuade the court to persuade to the land of jurisdiction only.
‘There is no control over the content of controversial issues from the status of Twitter India, the judge said that records managed by legal authorities and available in the public domain clearly show that Indian Twitter is an independent entity, and that the pattern and control of share ownership from the affairs of the company is on Hand Twitter International, Ireland.
The annual reward of Indian business activities Twitter shows that it is in advertising and market research, and has no control or authority on content on the social media platform, which is operated and controlled by Twitter Inc., the US, said the court.
, “The applicant does not control content on the social media platform.
The provisions of the law cannot be allowed to become a tool,” said the Judge.
“Even though the audience has been carried out over the past few days, respondents have not submitted even material iota to show the involvement of the prime facie from the applicant in this case,” said the judge.