Delhi Assembly’s Action On Facebook “Without Jurisdiction”: Centre To Supreme Court

0
37

“Public order and police are not within the domain of the Delhi Legislative Assembly,” Centre said.

The Centre Thursday told the Supreme Court that proceedings of the Delhi Assembly’s Peace and Harmony committee, which has summoned Facebook India VP and MD Ajit Mohan to appear as a witness in connection with the north-east Delhi riots, c as the issue pertained to law and order.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Justices SK Kaul and Dinesh Maheshwari that “public order and police are not within the domain of the Delhi Legislative Assembly and therefore this proceeding is without jurisdiction.”

The top court said that its September 23 order asking the assembly’s panel not to take any coercive action against MR Mohan would continue.

The bench, which posted the matter for arguments on December 2, was hearing a petition filed by Mr Mohan and Facebook against the summons issued by the committee.

The plea filed by Mr Mohan, Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd and Facebook Inc has contended that the committee lacks power to summon or hold petitioners in breach of its privileges for failing to appear and it was exceeding its constitutional limits.

They have challenged the September 10 and 18 notices issued by the committee that sought Mr Mohan’s presence before the panel which is probing the Delhi riots in February and FB’s role in spread of alleged hate speeches.

The Delhi assembly has recently told the top court that no coercive action has been taken against Mr Mohan and he was only summoned by its Peace and Harmony committee to appear as witness in connection with north-east Delhi violence.

During the hearing conducted on Thursday through video-conferencing, senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi Legislative Assembly, said that Mr Mohan has been called as a witness only.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioner, raised question over the jurisdiction of the committee and said that Mr Mohan is not willing to appear before it.

“Allegations are being made that Facebook has promoted disharmony in Delhi. Facebook does not write anything. It provides a platform,” Mr Salve said, adding that Facebook is regulated by a central law.

The bench, after hearing the submissions, said the prima facie issue is regarding the jurisdiction and power of Delhi assembly.

The top court said that affidavits, if any, be filed by October 31 and the matter would be heard on December 2.

In an affidavit filed recently in the top court, the Delhi Assembly has said that Mohan has not been issued any summons for breach of privilege.

It has said, “No coercive action has been taken against the petitioner number 1 (Mohan) and none was intended if he merely attended and participated in the proceedings as a witness. It is also important to note that the proceedings are being conducted in the most transparent manner with live broadcast and therefore there is no question of any apprehension in respect of the proceedings either by the Petitioner No. 1 or anyone else”.

“There is no notice to the Petitioner No.1 (Mohan) asking him to appear before this Committee of Respondent No.1 (Assembly) for a breach of privilege or contempt of the Committee. It has not been alleged at any time by the Committee of Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner has already committed a breach of privilege”, the affidavit has said.

It added that there is no occasion for the Committee to report to the Speaker about Mr Mohan having committed any breach of privilege.

It said that the procedure for breach of privilege is separate and that stage had not as yet been reached and even the mention of it was made for the first time in communication dated September 18, in light of the refusal of Mohan pursuant to validly issued summons September 10.

It said that the Peace and Harmony committee of the assembly had received multiple complaints/representations addressed to its chairman Raghav Chadha, underscoring the alleged instances of inaction/inability on the part of social media platform-Facebook to enforce its policies against inflammatory and hateful contents.

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here