SC questions Centre over social media gag order without user notice

The Supreme Court has asked Centre to justify social media takedowns without user notice, stressing the need for due process before removing posts linked to identifiable individuals

The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Centre regarding a gag order which directs the removal of social media posts without prior notice or a hearing for the account owner, reported Bar and Bench.

 

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih expressed its initial view that if a post is linked to an identifiable person, they should be given an opportunity to be heard before the content is taken down.  

 

"Prima facie, we both feel that if there is an identifiable person, then notice should be issued," the bench said.

 

The notice was issued in response to a petition filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), which raised concerns that intermediaries like X often remove content based on government directives without informing the user.  

 

 

Violation of natural justice?

 

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing SFLC, argued that while the government has the authority to remove content, failing to notify the user violates principles of natural justice.

 

"The law states that notice should be given to either the person who posted the content or the intermediary. However, in practice, only intermediaries are notified, leaving users in the dark," Jaising contended.

 

She further emphasised that the use of the word "or" in the existing legal framework allows the government to bypass direct notification to the user, making content removal a secretive process.  

 

Jaising also highlighted the case of senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, whose X account was suspended for years without any notice or explanation.

 

"Yes, a senior lawyer of this court, Mr Sanjay Hegde's X account was taken down. No notice was issued, and for years, it was not reinstated. This is in the public domain," she pointed out.  

 

The Supreme Court acknowledged these concerns and hinted that if the law is interpreted differently, the government could be obligated to serve notice to the identifiable person before any post is removed.  

 

The Supreme Court has now directed the Centre to respond to the petition.