The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Delhi Assembly’s right to summon and compel entities like Facebook to appear before its committees on grounds of its privilege.
Hearing a plea filed by Facebook India’s MD Ajit Mohan challenging the Delhi Assembly’s summon to appear before it in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, the Supreme Court held that digital platforms like Facebook have become power centres that have the ability to influence opinions. The court said they thus will have to remain accountable.
While dealing with the controversy over the Delhi Assembly committee summoning Facebook Vice-President Ajit Mohan for spread of hate messages during Delhi riots, a bench of Justices S K Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy said, “Entities like Facebook have to remain accountable to those who entrust them with such power.” TOI Editorial: Social media platforms can no longer be given special rights over content
Writing the judgment, Justice Kaul said, “While Facebook has played a crucial role in enabling free speech by providing a voice to the voiceless and means to escape state censorship, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it has simultaneously become a platform for disruptive messages, voices, and ideologies.”
However, the SC also said the committee, which is headed by AAP MLA Raghav Chadha and is inquiring into the Delhi riots, could not pre-judge and foray into issues relating to law and order, Delhi Police and information technology, or compel the representatives of the social media platform to depose on them. In a 188-page judgment delineating the privilege powers of Delhi Assembly and its lack of jurisdiction over law and order as well as Delhi Police, both of which vest with the Centre, a bench of Justices Sanjay K Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy said since the Assembly could not legislate on these two subjects as well as issues related to information technology, the committee also could not touch upon these issues while inquiring into the alleged role of Facebook in helping spread of hate speech during the Delhi riots.
“This (unity in diversity) cannot be disrupted at any cost or under any professed freedom by a giant like Facebook claiming ignorance or lack of any pivotal role,” the court said, and dismissed the plea filed by Facebook India Vice President and MD Ajit Mohan and others challenging the summons issued by the Delhi Assembly’s Peace and Harmony committee for failing to appear before it as witness in connection with last year’s north-east Delhi riots that left 53 people dead and 200 injured.
“The sheer population of our country makes it an important destination for Facebook. We are possibly more diverse than the whole of Europe in local culture, food, clothing, language, religion, traditions and yet have a history of what has now commonly been called ”unity in diversity”.”
The court said that in this modern technological age, it would be “too simplistic” for the petitioners to contend that they are merely a platform for exchange of ideas without performing any significant role themselves – especially given their manner of functioning and business model.
It also said that election process, which is the very foundation of a democratic government, stand threatened by “social media manipulation” and digital platforms can be “imminently uncontrollable at times” and carry their own challenges.
The Supreme Court said that information explosion in digital age is capable of creating new challenges that are insidiously modulating the debate on issues where opinions can be vastly divided and successful functioning of a liberal democracy can only be ensured when citizens are able to make informed decisions.
On the matter relating to the summons issued by the Delhi Assembly, it said there is no dispute about the right of assembly or the committee to proceed on grounds of breach of privilege per se and the power to compel attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential power.
“In the given facts of the case, the issue of privileges is premature,” the bench said, adding, “Canvassing a clash between privilege powers and certain fundamental rights is also pre-emptory in the present case.”
It said technological age has produced digital platforms – not like the railway platforms where trains were regulated on arrival and departure.
“By the very reason of the platform they provide, their influence extends over populations across borders. Facebook is one such corporation.”
The court said that in the national context, Facebook is the most popular social media platform in India with about 270 million registered users. Such vast powers must necessarily come with responsibility and entities like Facebook have to remain accountable to those who entrust them with such power, it added.
“Facebook today has influence over 1/3rd population of this planet! In India, Facebook claims to be the most popular social media with 270 million registered users. The width of such access cannot be without responsibility as these platforms have become power centres themselves, having the ability to influence vast sections of opinions,” the court said.
“In the conspectus of the aforesaid, it is difficult to accept the simplistic approach adopted by Facebook – that it is merely a platform posting third party information and has no role in generating, controlling or modulating that information.”
