The remarks were made at a Karnataka Supreme Court hearing on Maheshwari’s petition, which he filed after UP police named him in an FIR about the Ghaziabad attack video case.
Twitter India MD Manish Maheshwari said it was “vengeful” of the Uttar Pradesh police force, despite their clarifications, to issue legal notices insisting on his client’s physical appearance at the Loni Border Police Station, saying it was indicative of a ” hidden agenda ”. . For the past two days, the Karnataka Supreme Court has heard a petition from Maheshwari asking for help from the Uttar Pradesh Police Department, who had delivered notices to the police about content uploaded on Twitter.
Background: The content in question is a viral video of an elderly Muslim man who was attacked on June 5 in the Loni district of Ghaziabad and urged Twitter to remove such content. Loni Border Police then registered an FIR against some people who uploaded the video, as well as Twitter Inc and Twitter India for allegedly failing to remove the content despite a “clarification” issued by Ghaziabad Police. In this regard, the police sent two messages to Manish Maheshwari on Twitter under Section 150 of the CRPC and Section 41A, respectively, asking him to appear in person at the police station for investigative purposes.
The Karnataka Supreme Court had previously granted Maheshwari temporary protection from any coercive action by the UP police. During the recent hearings, Maheshwari’s attorney, senior attorney CV Nagesh, criticized the UP police for not allowing him to virtually comply with the notice – via a video call.
Nagesh said Maheshwari told UP police on June 18 that he was just an employee and had nothing to do with the allegations made in the FIR against Twitter and Twitter India in the case of the Ghaziabad attack video. He added that Maheshwari said he was ready to conduct the investigation virtually via video.
Nagesh quoted the UP police response to a communication from Maheshwari: “We received your email on June 18th. It is clear from your email that you are avoiding participating in the ongoing investigation. The justification for the clarifications given in the answer is in no way justified. “
In response, Nagesh said on Wednesday, “This is nothing more than a vengeful stance taken by the investigator. For this reason, in this wisdom, I did not obey his instructions according to § 160 … “On Thursday Nagesh continued:” I said I cannot come in person, so examine me virtually. But he (police) wasn’t happy. He didn’t do it because there is a hidden agenda. “
That said, Nagesh relied on various judgments while claiming that the case rests with the Karnataka High Court. Previously, UP attorney Prasanna Kumar challenged the jurisdiction of the case in the Karnataka High Court, stating that the FIR in the case was registered with the Loni Border Police Station in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
These are the rulings Nagesh was referring to on Wednesday when arguing for jurisdiction in the Karnataka Supreme Court –
- Shanti Devi versus Union of India
- Navinchandra N Majithia v Maharashtra State and others
As he continued his submissions on Thursday, Nagesh said, “There are three options for me to invoke your Lordship’s jurisdiction: I (Maheshwari) am a resident of Bengaluru, my office is in Bengaluru, and the notice given to me was sent was on my official email ID, which is based in Bengaluru. “
The court was then adjourned and the trial is due to continue on Friday.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court questioned Kumar for failing to confirm the “basic facts” in the Ghaziabad attack video, which identified both Twitter Inc and Twitter India as defendants. Justice G Narender’s single judge bench recognized that Twitter Inc and Twitter India were separate entities and asked if the latter “was able to remove the content”. The bank also noted that Maheshwari had stated that Twitter India has no control over the content on the platform.