The notice has warned Twitter of penal consequences under Section 69A[3] of Information Technology Act in case of non-compliance with the directions issued by the Centre. As per this provision, an intermediary who fails to comply with a direction issued under 69(1) shall be punished with imprisonment of up to seven years and fine.

The Centre had earlier issued an interim order on January 31 asking Twitter to take down the relevant URLs and the hashtag, but the same was not complied with until just before the Committee meeting held on February 1.

Around 100 Twitter accounts and 150 tweets related to the farmers’ protests went off the microblogging platform on Monday morning as the IT Ministry directed Twitter to remove these accounts under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. However, the accounts were unblocked late Monday night after a meeting with IT Ministry officials in which the social media platform argued that the content was “free speech” and “newsworthy”, The Indian Express reported.

The Indian Express quoted sources in Twitter as saying: “Pending our discussions with the regulatory authorities, we temporarily withheld these accounts in India under our Country Withheld Content policy in response to a valid legal request from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. During our subsequent meetings with the officials, Twitter conveyed that the accounts and Tweets in question constitute free speech and are newsworthy. Therefore, these Tweets and accounts have now been unwithheld. Protecting public conversation and Transparency is fundamental to the work we do at Twitter.”

However, the government has said that Twitter is an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act. An intermediary is bound to comply with an order issued by the designated officer authorised by the Central government, failing which statutory consequence will follow, the notice warns.

In this regard, Centre has cited Section 69A of the IT Act, as per which the Centre can direct an intermediary to block access to any information in order to prevent incitement to commission of any cognizable offence relating to public order.

The Indian Express quoted sources in Twitter as saying: “Pending our discussions with the regulatory authorities, we temporarily withheld these accounts in India under our Country Withheld Content policy in response to a valid legal request from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. During our subsequent meetings with the officials, Twitter conveyed that the accounts and Tweets in question constitute free speech and are newsworthy. Therefore, these Tweets and accounts have now been unwithheld. Protecting public conversation and Transparency is fundamental to the work we do at Twitter.”

However, the government has said that Twitter is an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act. An intermediary is bound to comply with an order issued by the designated officer authorised by the Central government, failing which statutory consequence will follow, the notice warns.

In this regard, Centre has cited Section 69A of the IT Act, as per which the Centre can direct an intermediary to block access to any information in order to prevent incitement to commission of any cognizable offence relating to public order.

Excerpts of notice sent to Twitter:

“The direction to block the hashtag ‘#ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide’ … has been found to be instigating people to commit cognizable offences in relations to public order and security of the state. It may be noted that the impracticability or the disproportionality of the said measure cannot be decided (by) Twitter which is an intermediary bound by the orders of the Central Government. It may further be noted that the banning of the said hashtag is accompanied by the content that is attached to the said hashtag by the users using the same.

Apart from the fact that the hashtag itself is provocative, the assertion of Twitter in its letter dated 1/2/2021 that praises, exaggerations, and crude emotional appeals do not constitute inflammatory speech in light of the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, is meritless, as the content attached to the said hashtag had been found to be directly falling afoul of Section 69A of the IT Act. In this regard, it is necessary to point out to the stated irrationality of Twitter conducting a purported constitutional balancing act in the absence of any legal mandate.

It is reiterated that the blocking committee had confirmed the earlier decision to block the URLs/hashtags. After the hearing was concluded on 1/2/2021 also, the interim order continued to remain in operation despite which you chose not to comply to the mandate of law and the order passed by the competent authority, legally endowed with the jurisdiction to pass the same. Instead, you chose to send a communication attempting to give justification thereby not only admitting that you have not complied with the order but also seeking to justify non-compliance.

Finally, it needs to be mentioned that 69A provided for specific consequences on case of non-compliance of directions issued under section 69A of the Act.”