YOU WANT TO DO BUSINESS IN INDIA BUT NOT WANT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE?: SC QUESTIONS FB
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday told Facebook that it was “a very difficult proposition to accept” that the social networking company wanted to continue its business in India by providing a platform for debate but it did not want to be accountable before any committee of the parliament or state assemblies.
“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.
The observation by the bench came after Facebook told the apex court that it not obligated to appear before any committee of Parliament or the state assem
blies — a stand which was opposed by the Centre.
According to the US-based social media company, its accord to show up before a parliamentary panel on information technology last month was “a business decision”.
However, the Centre, countering Facebook’s submission, submitted before the bench, which also included justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, that the tech company was bound to appear and depose if a parliamentary panel called its executives.
The Centre and the Facebook are at odds with each other on the question of authority of parliamentary panels at a time when the Union government is mulling a three-tier regulatory framework to cover media companies such as Facebook as well as over the top platforms.
The disagreement in the top court came across during the hearing of a petition by Ajit Mohan, head of Facebook India. who has 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 the Facebook could take a stand 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 had the power to regulate social media and its intermediaries, which the Delhi government did not have, Facebook would raise the same arguments to not appear before the parliamentary panel. He added that “compulsion on experts is abhorrent to the idea of free speech and liberty” while accusing the Delhi assembly of demonstrating a “constitutional arrogance” in pressing for the appearance of Facebook before its committee.