The Aam Aadmi Party has challenged the alleged blocking of its Gujarat unit’s Instagram handle “@aapgujarat” and Facebook page, seeking procedural safeguards for suspension of official social media accounts of registered political parties.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union Over AAP Gujarat Social Media Suspension
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Union of India on a writ petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party. The party challenged the suspension of its Gujarat unit’s Instagram handle “@aapgujarat” and its Facebook page.
A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the order. The Court also tagged the matter with similar petitions already pending before it.
The case has been linked with Software Freedom Law Center, India v. Union of India. That public interest litigation challenges the blocking of social media accounts and posts without prior notice to users.
AAP Questions Legal Basis Of Blocking
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for the petitioner. He argued that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act does not apply in this case. According to him, the provision only deals with safe harbour protection for intermediaries.
He further submitted that the issues raised in the SFLC petition overlap with the present matter. However, he clarified that both cases are not identical.
Farasat also highlighted the urgency of the issue. He told the Court that the party may need immediate access to its social media platforms to post updates.
Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that issuing notice to the Union may not be necessary. He said the petitioner could instead serve a copy of the plea on him directly.
Petition Challenges Use Of Section 79(3)(b)
In its plea, the AAP questioned the legal basis used to block and suspend its social media accounts.
The party sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act does not give authorities the power to order blocking of online information.
Section 79 of the IT Act provides exemption from liability for intermediaries. However, under Section 79(3)(b), safe harbour protection can be withdrawn if an intermediary fails to remove unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge through a court order or government notice.
AAP Seeks Quashing Of Blocking Directions
The petition also challenged all directions, rules and notifications issued under Section 79(3)(b) that relate to blocking online information.
In addition, the party sought quashing of the alleged directions issued by law enforcement authorities to Meta for blocking or suspending the Gujarat unit’s Instagram and Facebook accounts.
AAP further requested the Supreme Court to call for all records connected with the alleged blocking directions.
Plea Alleges Violation Of Constitutional Rights
The party argued that the blocking of the “@aapgujarat” Instagram account and Facebook page is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
It also claimed that the action violates constitutional protections relating to free speech and political communication.
Further, the plea sought guidelines and procedural safeguards for blocking or suspending official social media accounts of registered political parties.
According to the petition, authorities should take such action only after giving prior notice, an opportunity to be heard and written reasons for the decision. The party also argued that any restriction must satisfy the grounds listed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution and Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
Section 69A Of IT Act Explained
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act allows the Government to block public access to online information under specific conditions.
These grounds include the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States and public order. The provision also covers situations involving incitement to commit cognisable offences linked to these grounds.
