[Twitter plea against URL blocking] Central government seeks in-camera hearing; Karnataka High Court orally says will allow

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Central government on a plea by Twitter challenging blocking orders issued by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY)..Justice Krishna S Dixit also orally said that he will grant the request by the Central government to have proceedings in-camera. "My chamber is very small. But we'll make it in-camera if you so desire," he said after the government counsel sought in-camera hearing.The petitioner was also directed to serve all documents referred to by them in a sealed cover to the respondents. "Petitioner is directed to share a copy of all documents in a sealed cover with the ld. Central Government Counsel," the Court ordered. .Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Twitter, highlighted that no reasons were given in relation to the blocking orders issued. "If this is the way its going to happen, my entire business will come to an end," he submitted. On the Senior Counsel's request, the Court agreed to hear the case further on August 25, 2022..The ten blocking orders in question, which were issued between February 2021 and February 2022, directed Twitter to block certain information from access to the public, and to suspend several accounts. The blocking orders were handed over to the High Court via sealed covers marked as annexures A to K..In its petition filed before the High Court, Twitter has contended that account-level blocking is a disproportionate measure and violates the rights of users under the Constitution..Out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, Twitter has challenged the blocking of only 39 URLs..The petition states that the orders in question are manifestly arbitrary, and procedurally and substantively not in consonance with Section 69A of the IT Act. Further, they fail to comply with the procedures and safeguards prescribed by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules), it has been submitted..Twitter has also argued that the direction to block entire accounts falls afoul of Section 69A of the IT Act. The ambit of 'information' that may be blocked under this provision extends only to blocking information that is available and does not extend to preventing information from being generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted, the plea states."...Blocking Orders to withhold access to the entire account cannot be issued without providing cogent reasons as to why such account level blocking in necessary or expedient...account level blocking is a disproportionate measure and violates rights of users under the Constitution."Another argument made was that MEITY has not provided a notice to the originator of the content under Rule 8(1) of the Blocking Rules, as was mandated by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India..[Read our live coverage of the hearing here]