During the hearing, the microblogging platform attorney explained why the interim complainant had resigned.
The Delhi Supreme Court on Tuesday gave Twitter two days to confirm when it will comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Rules (Intermediary Guidelines and Code of Ethics for Digital Media) 2021, expected to be the Lead Senior Counsel for before the next appointment Defendant No. 2 will be ready with instructions on the respondents’ point of view and compliance with all other aspects of the IT rules, ”said a single judge’s bench from judge Rekha Palli.
The court heard a petition asking it to instruct Twitter to comply with IT rules, which, among other things, require the appointment of a resident complaints officer. In its affidavit on the case, the government said it no longer believes Twitter has intermediary liability under the rules.
- Twitter can’t take as long as it wants: During oral arguments, Judge Palli noted, “If Twitter believes that it can take you as long as you want in our country, I will not allow it.” She added that the company was in the two weeks between the resignation of Dharmendra Chatur , an attorney who briefly served as interim complainant for Twitter, and the hearing should have appointed someone. The judiciary also raped the company’s attorney, Sajan Poovayya, for failing to clarify that Chatur’s appointment was temporary. Poovayya replied that he was only acting on the instructions of his client.
- Why the preliminary complainant resigned: Dharmendra Chatur, a designated partner at Poovayya & Co., resigned just weeks after his appointment as interim complaints officer. Poovayya shed light on why this happened. “What happened was this: a preliminary complainant who is a practicing lawyer [Chatur] appointed. And this person stayed in their position for about three weeks and then stated that since the union [Government] said they would not accept a non-employee as a complainant – and also to be fair to the lawyer, he noted that there is a lot of fallout that he does not have to interfere with. Now he’s withdrawn his approval and Twitter is about to appoint a new one [grievance officer],” he explained.
What follows is the order dictated by Judge Palli. Note that the version of the order issued by the court has not been uploaded to the Delhi High Court website.
On May 31, 2021, when the present petition was opened for preliminary hearing, the expert for defendant No. 2 [Twitter] had submitted on instruction that the defendant had already appointed a resident complaints officer on May 28, 2021 in accordance with the IT guidelines (guidelines on the liability of intermediaries and code of ethics for digital media) 2021.
In light of that statement, Defendant # 2 has been given time to submit a brief response to the counter-affidavit. Said answer was filed, and an inspection reveals that Defendant No. 2 had only appointed one interim complainant as of May 31, 2021 – which was not brought to the attention of this court – who is also said to have resigned on June 21, 2021. 2 asserts that Defendant No. 2 is in the process of appointing a new residents’ registration officer. When asked about the time within which Defendant # 2’s trial is likely to be completed, he prayed for time to receive clear instructions.
Although the matter was skipped, he submits that due to the time zone difference between Delhi and San Francisco, USA, where Respondent No. 2 is located, he has been unable to receive instructions and is praying for short accommodation. On the other hand, the ASG, which submits for Defendant No. 1, has argued that Defendant No. 2 clearly violates the rules. However, he does not object to the request for short accommodation. List under these circumstances the day after tomorrow [July 8].
Given that the matter is adjourned, it is expected that before the next appointment the Lead Senior Counsel for Defendant # 2 will be ready with instructions on the respondent’s point of view and compliance with all other aspects of the IT rules.