FB now says it’s not obligated to appear before Parl panels
NEW DELHI: Can social media company Facebook choose to not appear before parliamentary and state-assembly panels if it doesn’t want to? That question saw interesting exchanges in the Supreme Court on Wednesday with the court telling the company that this seeming lack of accountability is “a very difficult proposition to accept” and the Centre, reacting to the company’s claim, nuancing its earlier position and saying the company would have to appear before Parliament or a state assembly if they have the “legislative competence” on the subject at hand.
The exchange and Facebook’s contention that it could choose not to appear before any institution, as long as it follows the laws, is interesting because it comes at a time when the Union government is readying a framework to regulate social media and digital media companies.
“Logically, you are a platform for debate. So, the debates will occur. But you say that you do not want to participate in a debate or a discussion or an inquiry before any committee. But you still want to carry out business in India. You are saying that I am willing to do business in India; I will provide a platform for debate but I do not want to be accountable. That is a very difficult proposition to accept,” said a bench, headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
This came after Facebook told the court that it is not obligated to appear before any committee of Parliament or the state assemblies — a stand promptly opposed by the Central government. The social media company said it cannot be compelled by any committee of the parliament or the state assembly to participate in an inquiry and that its move to appear before a parliamentary panel on information technology last month was “a business decision”.
The Centre, countering Facebook’s submission, submitted before the bench, which also included justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, that the tech company is bound to appear and depose if a parliamentary panel summons it. The disagreement in the top court came across during the hearing of a petition by Ajit Mohan, head of Facebook India. who challenged the summons issued to him by peace and harmony committee of the Delhi assembly, asking him to appear and answer some queries on the role of the social networking portal in the Delhi riots in February 2020.
As the hearing commenced, the bench asked whether Facebook’s position was that it had a right not to appear before any committee after it has already attended the summons from the parliamentary committee of information technology in January. Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing Facebook, answered in the affirmative: “I have the right to not appear irrespective of the institution. I am complying with all the laws. I am not breaching any law. But I can choose not to appear before any committee.”
Salve added that except for one contention that Parliament has the power to regulate the social media and intermediaries, which the Delhi government does not have, Facebook would raise the same arguments to not appear before the parliamentary panel too. He added that “compulsion on experts is abhorrent to the idea of free speech and liberty” while accusing the Delhi assembly of demonstrating “constitutional arrogance” in pressing for the appearance of the Facebook before its committee.
The senior counsel then read out from a letter written by Union IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad to Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of the company, in September 2020, raising “serious concerns” over the “concerted effort” by the platform to “reduce the reach of people supportive of right-of-centre ideology”. He further said Aam Aadmi Party MLA and chairman of the peace and harmony committee Raghav Chadha has, on the other hand accused Facebook of supporting the right-wing groups during the February 2020 riots.
“Both sides are saying we took sides. What is going on here is a political battle. Their (Delhi government’s) face off is not with Facebook but with the Union. I have a right to not go and that is how I understand my right to silence. I don’t want to be in the middle of a divide,” emphasised Salve. At this, the bench retorted: “You are a powerful platform and the argument is that you cannot be an unaccountable platform. You have no hesitation to go before the parliamentary committee. There you may face the same divide but you still went.” Salve replied: “I went because of a commercial compulsion. It is my choice to agree where to appear. I may choose not to go to any committee. And I don’t want to give my reasons too because that may create more problems.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, opposed this: “If the assembly has the competence, Facebook cannot say no. My case is Facebook’s coming to parliament cannot be a voluntary act; they are bound to come. Likewise, if a state assembly has the legislative competence on the subject it is dealing with, Facebook should go there too.”
You (FB) are a powerful platform and the argument is that you can’t be an unaccountable platform... SC BENCH