Bengaluru: Twitter India MD Manish Maheshwari was submitted on Tuesday to the Karnataka High Court that he was ready to appear directly with a controversial video clip, and prepared to work together in an investigation, provided there was no threat of arrest.
He has been asked by the Ghaziabad police to appear directly.
Meanwhile, Ghaziabad police, came for a few serious questions from HC, who asked sharply how “connected” Twitter India in the case investigated.
The judge said unless it was shown that the applicant was responsible for uploading, or not removing, the intended content, he was nobody as far as regarding the case.
Justice G Narendar wonders why the police cannot gather information about the company from the Articles of Association, which is in the public domain.
“The whole problem is you don’t want to investigate …
On what basis do you say Twitter India is responsible?” she says.
Maheshwari’s advisor also argued that the police did not have jurisdiction to issue a notification to Maheshwari because he was not responsible for the affairs of the daily company.
MD Twitter has moved HC challenging notifications on June 21 to appear to be questioned on June 24.
Citing an example of alleged under the IPC part 376 where proof of the relevant potential to determine the case, each determination of the prime facie has been made of how Indian Twitter is responsible for the issuance of video clips or how the company can stop it.
“How does the complainant connect Indian Twitter for this? What is their allegations (Twitter India)? Is that (company) able to eliminate content? Is there an initial investigation done to ensure this,” the judge asked the public prosecutor specifically representing the police.
Pointing out that Twitter India and Twitter Inc.
are two independent bodies, the court also wondered if Twitter India was even an intermediary.
“The complainants are very clear that they are two independent bodies.
So, where investigations, whether they are asked to confirm their compliance with the rules.
Where is the material? Unless they are intermediaries …
there is no conclusive evidence.
By you that they are even intermediaries , “The court observes.
“Where you are heading,” said the judge, expressed a surprise at the Petitioner Section 79 of the IT laws related to the intermediary of the social media.
Regarding the notification to Maheshwari, the court said, “Instead of him (Maheshwari) challenging.
He is very specific, categorically.
He said I had no control over video uploader.
At least before this court was placed in the material.” Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, appeared for Maheshwari, said the applicant was just an employee who had no control over user data.
He argued that the police did not have jurisdiction to issue a notification under the CRPC 41A section because the status of the applicant did not match him.
He was maintained that even under clause 3 of 41A, said the applicant would not be arrested if compliance, the investigative officer could still arrest the applicant after the reason for recording and, therefore, “Arrest ‘Damocles” was always in the head of the Petitioner.
Appearing for the police, SPP P Prasanna Kumar submitted that the notification was issued in a representative capacity and that there was no “magician hunting”.
He said Twitter played “hide and seek” when the police only wanted the applicant to reveal who the person was responsible for the company in India.
Arguing that foreign companies with so many followers could not be headless, he said that Fir was registered by the police about non-compliance with the rules.
Kumar further argues that the petition itself cannot be maintained because there are no events related to the case of the police have occurred in Karnataka.
Nagesh replied that the applicant was a resident of Bengaluru City and therefore the petition could be maintained.
The trial will continue on Wednesday.
On June 15, Ghaziabad police booked Twitter Inc.
and Twitter Communications India, among entities and other individuals, to circulate a video of an elderly man who was being attacked.
On June 24, HC has passed the temporary commandment which states that there is no compulsion action taken against Maheshwari.
However, the police were allowed to question them through a video link.