New Delhi, Sep 1: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Centre and Meta Platforms on a plea by National Conference MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi challenging the suspension of his Facebook page.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice and asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook, to file their replies.
The court, which listed the plea for a hearing on September 30, refused to grant the Lok Sabha MP any interim relief at this stage and said it would not pass any order without hearing the other side.
During the hearing, the counsel for Meta Platforms submitted that the MP’s Facebook page was taken down pursuant to a law enforcement agency’s notice and sought time to present the court with relevant documents.
The petition said Mehdi, a Lok Sabha member, is also a religious leader and has a Facebook page titled ‘Ruhullah Mehdi’ which serves as a primary medium for disseminating information, engaging with constituents, and participating in democratic dialogue.
However, the petitioner’s access to the social media page has been restricted by Meta since March, at a notice issued under the Information Technology Act.
The petition, filed through advocates Tamanna Pankaj and Archit Krishna, said Meta took the action without providing the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, nor were any detailed reasons disclosed to him.
The counsel said Mehdi sent a representation to the grievance redressal officer, and Meta was required to respond within 24 hours, but no reply came.
“The statutory framework permits the removal or disabling of access to specific unlawful content upon due process; however, it does not contemplate or authorise a blanket restriction on an entire account or page without identifying specific offending material and without adherence to the limitations prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,” the plea said.
It said Mehdi’s Facebook page constitutes not only an exercise of his right to freedom of speech and expression but also a crucial medium of professional engagement and public outreach.
The continued restriction has severely impaired the petitioner’s ability to discharge his public duties, engage with constituents, and participate in democratic processes, the plea says.
Despite the grave consequences of the impugned notice, no reasoned order or communication has been furnished to the petitioner to date, it contends.–(PTI)
