Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Twitter challenging ten blocking orders issued by the Central government. The orders, issued between February 2021 and 2022, directed the social media giant to take down 39 URLs. The court also imposed a hefty ₹50 lakh (5 million) penalty on Twitter, citing the company's failure to provide adequate reasons for not complying with the government's demands for blocking in a timely manner.

Justice Krishna S Dixit, while delivering the verdict, stated that Twitter, being a billionaire company, is well-versed in the law and cannot be compared to an ordinary person or farmer. The court endorsed the Central government's position, affirming its authority not only to block tweets but also to block user accounts.

The judgment addressed various crucial aspects, including whether reasons should be communicated to the user whose tweet is blocked and whether the blocking of tweets should be limited to a specific period or could be imposed indefinitely.

Twitter had argued that the Central government lacked the power to issue general orders for blocking social media accounts. They contended that blocking orders should contain reasons that must be communicated to users. Twitter also emphasized that blocking orders should only be issued if the content in question aligns with the grounds specified under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. They further expressed concerns that the absence of recorded reasons in blocking orders might lead to the fabrication of reasons at a later stage.

Twitter's invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution, which pertains to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts, was also challenged. The Central government contended that Twitter cannot represent its account holders and, therefore, had no locus standi to file the petition. Additionally, since Twitter is a foreign entity and the government's blocking orders were not arbitrary, the company could not rely on fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19 (right to freedom of speech and expression) of the Indian Constitution.

Twitter's petition argued that account-level blocking is an excessive measure that violates users' rights under the Constitution. Out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, Twitter specifically challenged the blocking of 39 URLs. The petition stated that the blocking orders were arbitrary and failed to comply with Section 69A of the IT Act and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules).

The Central government defended its actions by stating that the directions to block certain Twitter accounts were issued in the interest of national and public safety to prevent incidents of lynching and mob violence. They emphasized their commitment to providing an open, safe, trusted, and accountable internet for citizens, asserting that their powers to block information are limited in scope.

Senior Advocates Ashok Haranahalli, Arvind Datar, and Advocate Manu Kulkarni represented Twitter, while Additional Solicitor General of India R Sankaranarayanan appeared for the Central government.

Overall, the Karnataka High Court's dismissal of Twitter's plea and the imposition of a ₹50 lakh penalty underscore the court's endorsement of the Central government's authority to block tweets and accounts and the expectation of timely compliance by social media platforms.