New Delhi - The Union Government informed the Delhi High Court that the legal protection granted to X (formerly Twitter) in India may be withdrawn for failing to remove objectionable tweets made by journalist Rana Ayyub against Hindu deities and freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
1. The Union Government and Delhi Police submitted before the court that despite receiving judicial orders and legal notices, X failed to take down the objectionable content. Under the provisions of the IT Act, once a social media platform receives official notice regarding unlawful content, it is obligated to remove it. Failure to do so can lead to withdrawal of protection under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act.
2. The case pertains to certain tweets made by Rana Ayyub between 2013 and 2017. Advocate Amita Sachdeva has filed a petition in this regard. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for 19 May.
Objectionable Tweets by Journalist Rana Ayyub on Shriram, Savarkar, and the Indian Army
Justice Purushendra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court observed that the posts made by Rana Ayyub on X were "highly offensive, provocative, and fanatical in nature," and directed the Delhi Police to take action against her. Some of the tweets are as follows:
1. In a 2013 tweet, Ayyub wrote: "Ravana did not even touch Sita, though he could have. Ram did not stand up for Sita, though he should have."
2. In October 2014, Ayyub quoted a couplet by Ali Sardar Jafri, which stated: "How long will Ravana rule over poor Sita's home? How long will Draupadi's garment be snatched away from her?"
3. In 2015, Ayyub tweeted about Savarkar, stating: "So Veer Savarkar supported rape as an important part of Hindutva nationalism."
4. In another tweet about Savarkar, she wrote: "I was reading details written by Nathuram Godse about Savarkar and wondering whether we should continue to honour this supporter of terrorism."
5. In 2016, Ayyub posted a tweet with a photograph of a young boy bearing injury marks on his face, writing: "Dear Indian Army, I suppose this little boy must have been such a huge threat to India's sovereignty that he was blinded for life."