BENGALURU: Journalist, author and human rights activist Aakar Patel withdrew Thursday his interlocutory application (IA) from the Karnataka high court in a petition filed by multi-blogging platform Twitter Inc that challenged blocking orders issued by the central government.
He took back his IA, seeking for impleadment as an intervenor, after Justice Krishna S Dixit indicated that the court will impose heavy penalties — not less than Rs 25 lakh — for wasting its time and to deter such litigants coming to court to espouse somebody’s cause.
Justice Dixit adjourned the hearing to November 16, after recalling that a similar IA filed by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde was rejected by the court.
Patel has claimed he had suffered due to the unconstitutional blocking orders that affected his Twitter account. According to him, in June 2020, it appears that the central government had compelled the petitioner (Twitter) to block his account under section 69A of IT Act.
He claimed he was not heard before issuing the order and the copy of it wasn’t given to him either. “The respondents (central government) restricted my right to speech and carry on my profession for as yet unknown reasons. I believe that other users of Twitter and other social media platforms have faced similar concerns as me, many of whom may be affected by the impugned orders but are not represented in the present proceedings,” Patel stated in his IA.
He took back his IA, seeking for impleadment as an intervenor, after Justice Krishna S Dixit indicated that the court will impose heavy penalties — not less than Rs 25 lakh — for wasting its time and to deter such litigants coming to court to espouse somebody’s cause.
Justice Dixit adjourned the hearing to November 16, after recalling that a similar IA filed by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde was rejected by the court.
Patel has claimed he had suffered due to the unconstitutional blocking orders that affected his Twitter account. According to him, in June 2020, it appears that the central government had compelled the petitioner (Twitter) to block his account under section 69A of IT Act.
He claimed he was not heard before issuing the order and the copy of it wasn’t given to him either. “The respondents (central government) restricted my right to speech and carry on my profession for as yet unknown reasons. I believe that other users of Twitter and other social media platforms have faced similar concerns as me, many of whom may be affected by the impugned orders but are not represented in the present proceedings,” Patel stated in his IA.
