New Delhi:
Social media giant Meta Platforms Inc – the parent company of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp – has informed the Delhi Supreme Court that the rights under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by a user and that it is a private entity that does not perform a public function.
In its affidavit filed in response to a subpoena against an alleged Instagram account shutdown, the US-based company said the “Instagram service is a free and voluntary platform governed by a private contract, and the submitter user.” has no fundamental right to use it”.
Several petitions have been seized by the Supreme Court challenging the suspension and deletion of various user accounts by various social media platforms.
In March, in response to another petition against the suspension of a Twitter account against the Supreme Court, the central government had said that an individual’s liberty and liberty cannot be “robbed or jettisoned in the slipstream of social and technological progress” and the social media platforms must respect the fundamental rights of the citizens and comply with the constitution of india.
It had stressed that a key social media intermediary must be held accountable for subjugating and suppressing fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and expression, otherwise it would “have serious consequences for any democratic nation”.
In its affidavit filed in the present case, Meta argued that it is under no obligation to perform a “public duty” and that taking action against a user in accordance with the private contract between them results in a “contractual dispute between two Private Parties”.
Whether the alleged enforcement actions were improper is governed by the Instagram Terms of Service and Community Guidelines that make up the private contract, and Meta thus does not fall under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution, the social media giant said.
“Applicant’s attempt to have this Hon’ble Court invoke its writ of writ is particularly inappropriate as the relationship between the Petitioner and Meta is a private treaty and the alleged dispute in question is a contractual one and Article 19 rights cannot be invoked against a private entity such as Meta,” the affidavit said.
“The petitioner’s attempt to assert Article 19 rights against Meta, a private entity, is inappropriate, against the law and must be denied… under Article 226,” it added.
In the affidavit, Meta further stated that, contrary to the petitioner’s claims, it does not have a monopoly on information dissemination or perform any sovereign function, and that the law only requires intermediaries to appeal after the action is completed against whatever account are taken and not heard of them until action is taken.
“The Petitioner has not presented any fact to show that the Instagram service, or Meta itself, meets any of the above tests (of public function). On the contrary, (i) Meta is under no obligation to perform any public task , (ii) ) the government does not exercise any control over Meta’s management nor over its day-to-day operations, and (iii) Meta has not been granted exclusive rights to carry on any activity, nor has Meta been granted monopoly status under the law, (iv) Meta does not perform any function similar to or closely related to functions performed by the state in its sovereign capacity, and (v) Meta voluntarily provides the Instagram service and is under no obligation to do so” the affidavit said.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by DailyExpertNews staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.)