Site icon Legal Vidhiya

Ajit Mohan & Ors. Vs Legislative Assembly National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Admin
Spread the love

Introduction

The Delhi Legislative Assembly had the right to summon those who weren’t serving as ministers, the court declared on July 8. In order to conduct an inquiry into probable elements that may disturb communal harmony after the 2020 Delhi riots, the Assembly’s Committee on Peace and Harmony had earlier utilised parliamentary privilege to call Ajit Mohan, the Vice-President of Facebook India. The court acknowledged that legislative committees, especially their subcommittees like the Peace and Harmony Committee, do more than just make laws; they also promote important talks with stakeholders and provide suggestions that guide those choices. The Court ruled that the Legislative Assembly had the authority to exert privilege in order to carry out its function.

Background

India’s capital city of Delhi had major racial unrest in February 2020. As a result, the Delhi Legislative Assembly established a Committee on Peace and Harmony, headed by Mr. Raghav Chadha, with the goal of deciphering the reasons behind the riots and offering suggestions to stop similar situations in the future. According to allegations made to the Committee, Facebook was used to propagate hate speech and jeopardise intergroup peace. After then, on August 14, 2020, the Wall Street Journal released a story titled “Facebook’s Hate Speech Rules Collide with Indian Politics” that looked into how Facebook India staff used content moderation guidelines in a biassed way that encouraged hate speech.

Both the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology and the Peace and Harmony Committee issued separate summonses to Mr. Ajit Mohan, Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook India Online Services Private Limited, in response to the Delhi riots and allegations that Facebook was involved in the dissemination of hate speech. Mr. Mohan spoke before the Parliamentary Committee but declined to testify before the Peace and Harmony Committee, claiming that the Delhi Assembly does not have the authority to regulate intermediaries like Facebook.

In response, the Peace and Harmony Committee issued a second summons, claiming that Mr. Mohan’s defiance violated the constitution’s (Articles 105 and 194) provision allowing legislatures to bring legal action against those who obstruct their operations.

Mr. Ajit Mohan petitioned the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution to have the summons issued by the Peace and Harmony Committee revoked. The Peace and Harmony Committee handed Facebook India a second summons, requesting that a senior representative of the corporation appear before them while the case was still being heard by the court. The Supreme Court’s actions were based on this new summons, which superseded the two earlier summonses sent to Mr. Mohan.

Issues

Arguments raised by the Petitioner

The assertion was made that even though no remedy was requested, the petitioner was merely served because it was believed that there may be some power connection between the Delhi Secretariat and the Central Government Secretariat. The parent firm (Facebook Inc.), which is situated in the US, should not be drawn into a political controversy, which served as the foundation for the summonses, thus the petitioner had no intention of participating in such a discussion. The petitioner had the option to show there but not speak if they chose to.

The major defence focused on the Assembly and the Committee’s apparent lack of legislative authority to investigate into the topic for which the petitioners were given notice. As a result, the petitioners had the right to approach the Court now rather than waiting for the case to advance further since they were ready to abide by Indian law but did not want to get drawn into a political controversy.

Arguments raised by the Respondent

Respondent put forth the argument that the bold stand of the petitioners stood on a support base from the Central Government. The appearance before the Parliamentary Committee was sought to be justified by the petitioners as being based on commercial and operational reasons and not in view of any compulsion (an aspect disputed by learned Solicitor General on behalf of the Central Government). The petitioners, it was argued, were actually canvassing a case on absence of any commercial and operational consequences/compulsions rather than lack of jurisdiction.

Similar to the privileges issue, the respondent claimed that this matter is also premature because the petitioner would not be subjected to coercion if their authorised representative attends and takes part in the proceedings as a witness. Furthermore, it was argued that summoning the petitioner did not infringe any basic rights.

Judgement

The Supreme Court’s three-judge panel, led by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Hrishikesh Roy, decided the writ suit brought by Mr. Mohan on July 8, 2021. The Peace and Harmony Committee was denied permission to call a non-member to testify and look into a matter on which it lacked the ability to establish legislation, according to Mr. Mohan and Facebook India’s arguments, which were rejected by the court.

With reference to Walter Bagehot’s “The English Constitution,” which lists five important functions of a legislature, including being elective, expressive, teaching, informing, and legislative, the Court based its decision on the understanding that the function of a legislature is not limited to enacting laws. The Court concluded that the Delhi Assembly and the Committee had the jurisdiction to undertake an investigation into the circumstances that led to the Delhi riots in addition to their role in adopting laws. As a result, the Court decided that the summons issued by the Peace and Harmony Committee to Facebook executives was appropriate.

The Court also agreed that the issues brought up by Mr. Mohan and Facebook India were premature because the Peace and Harmony Committee had just called them in for a meeting and had not yet requested that they demonstrate why there had been a breach of privilege. The Court did rule that the Committee lacked the ability to propose proceedings against specific people in light of damning information since the Assembly lacked such authority. Such proposals were compared by the Court to “policing,” which is the purview of the Union Government in Delhi’s National Capital Territory. As a result, representatives of Facebook are free to opt out of responding to Committee inquiries that specifically concern the Central Government.

Conclusion

A three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued a judgement that was highly regarded. The Committee started a crucial investigation into the circumstances underlying the Delhi riots in 2020, and the Court’s ruling enables the Committee to continue working in that direction. Notably, the Committee is qualified to assess Facebook’s contribution to the riots in light of the information revealed in the Wall Street Journal story that raised questions about the potential deliberate dissemination of hate speech on the network. IFF had previously requested that the Parliamentary Committee call a meeting of Facebook’s top management on August 17, 2020. This request was subsequently granted, and Mr. Mohan appeared before the Committee as needed.

The current Facebook ruling underlines the need to revisit the national discussion about codifying privileges in light of previous rulings on the scope of such advantages. Parliament may decide against codifying privileges, but in order to do so, lawmakers must offer additional arguments beyond those already mentioned.

Reference

This article is written by Varsha Gond, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version