Today, On 8th May, Delhi High Court slammed X (formerly Twitter), Over User Info in Shazia Ilmi Video Case saying, “Individuals are using your platform to breach court orders.” X had sought changes in the order asking for user data of video uploaders.
New Delhi: Social media platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) has approached the Delhi High Court to request a modification of its previous order, which mandated the company to provide basic subscriber information (BSI) of users who uploaded a controversial video.
X Corp, informed the Delhi High Court that it would provide the basic subscriber information (BSI) of users who uploaded a video featuring BJP leader Shazia Ilmi. In the video, she is seen withdrawing from a live debate on India Today and stepping out of the camera view.
This video featured an altercation between BJP leader Shazia Ilmi and a journalist from India Today and was removed following the court’s order on April 4.
The lawyer representing X stated in court,
“We’re not challenging the court’s authority our position is based on a provision within the applicable law.”
However, the court was not persuaded by this argument and responded strongly.
The judge remarked,
“I’m inclined to ask you to file a memo of parties, that’s the only practical way I can obtain the information from you. I can’t type it out myself. The purpose is to officially bring those individuals on record so they can be summoned if needed.”
The court also expressed serious concerns regarding the defiance of its earlier ruling, stating,
“Sir, just consider what’s happened here. A judgment was issued prohibiting the upload of this video, yet your user went ahead and posted both the footage and the judgment itself.”
Additionally, the court criticized the alternative proposals put forth by X Corp’s legal team.
The judge commented,
“Just look at the suggestions you’re offering, serve them by substitution, or through newspaper ads. These individuals are using your platform to breach court orders, and you’re suggesting the court should reach them via newspaper publication?”
In response, the advocate for X suggested,
“We can provide the details in a sealed cover.”
However, the court quickly dismissed this idea, stating,
“What will I do with a sealed cover?”
The judge emphasized the need for accountability, saying,
“The users need to be made parties to the case and summoned to court. They must realize this behavior is unacceptable. You’re turning this into a bigger issue than it needs to be.”
The counsel for X reiterated their request, stating,
“We’re simply requesting to submit the information in a sealed envelope. The court can issue summons afterward.”
The court, however, raised another significant concern,
“But how can I summon them if their identities remain undisclosed?”
Ultimately, the court made it clear:,
“What you’re requesting cannot be allowed.”
The lawyer for X then requested additional time, saying,
“Kindly grant me 36 hours to address this issue.”
The judge did not hold back in his criticism of the application, observing,
“It seems the person who drafted this application is unfamiliar with this court’s practices, no regular practitioner here would have prepared something like this.”
While the issue of user privacy was not resolved during the hearing, the court noted,
“The contentions raised in this application regarding the privacy of the users of X Corp is kept reserved to be determined in the appropriate proceedings and cannot be determined in this matter.”
The court has scheduled the next hearing for August 29.
Case Title: SHAZIA ILMI v. RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS