Social media giant ‘X’ Corp has informed the Delhi High Court that a directive to remove posts considered defamatory by journalist Rajat Sharma from all countries would violate international law and the principles of comity of nations, encroaching upon the sovereignty of other countries.
In an affidavit filed in the high court in response to a contempt application by Sharma, X argued that allowing a court to decide what information people in all countries can view would imply that foreign courts, such as those in Pakistan and China, could dictate what Indian citizens can or cannot access on the Internet based on their own laws.
“Such an order by a foreign court would interfere with the rights of Indian citizens, over whom that foreign court has no jurisdiction. Thus, the plaintiff’s argument would lead to unacceptable results. This court should hold that defendant no. 1 (X) complied with the injunction order by geo-blocking the URLs in India,” the affidavit stated, adding that X fully respects India’s right to enforce its laws within its jurisdiction.
The affidavit further contended that a directive to remove posts globally, rather than restricting them to India, would contravene international law and the principles of comity of nations. “An order to remove the URLs in all other countries would not be enforced outside of India, such as in the United States,” it noted.
X claimed Sharma’s attempt to selectively target X is meritless because other websites have not globally removed the video he seeks to censor. Initially, Sharma filed a defamation suit seeking the removal of alleged offensive posts and videos against him on social media and to restrain Congress leaders Jairam Ramesh, Pawan Khera, and Ragini Nayak from making allegations against him.
Sharma alleged defamation by the Congress leaders due to “abusive language” used during his show on Lok Sabha election results day. Later, Sharma filed a contempt plea, claiming that the Congress leaders and X had deliberately and willfully not complied with the judicial order to remove the alleged offensive social media posts against him.
In its response to the contempt plea, listed for hearing on August 22, X stated that the injunction order’s direction to ‘remove’ or ‘block’ the URLs does not require it to remove the posts globally or make them inaccessible to every person on the planet. “Any such requirement would violate international law and the principles of comity of nations. It would extend beyond this court’s jurisdictional reach and encroach upon the sovereignty of all other countries, including the United States, where different legal standards and protections apply,” the affidavit said.
It further explained that the principle of state sovereignty in international law asserts that state organs, including courts in a given country, cannot extend their jurisdiction beyond that country. “Such a direction would also run contrary to the well-established principle of international comity, which mandates that national courts should consider the impact of their decisions on the rights of nationals in foreign jurisdictions and the corresponding interests of foreign states in protecting those rights.”
“An order to globally remove posts would not be enforced in countries whose laws do not prohibit access to those posts. In other words, no useful purpose will be served by issuing orders with international footprints that are otherwise incapable of being enforced globally,” the affidavit added. It concluded that since an Indian court will not recognize or execute any foreign judgment conflicting with local laws in India, it is just and fair for Indian courts not to pass orders that may conflict with foreign laws.
The affidavit urged that the court should hold that X has complied with the injunction order by geo-blocking the URLs in India and dismiss Sharma’s contempt plea. The controversy began when Nayak accused Sharma of abusing her on national television during a debate on his show on June 4. Sharma is the chairman and editor-in-chief of Independent News Service Private Limited (INDIA TV). Sharma’s counsel had argued that while the debate was occurring on the channel on the evening of June 4, Congress leaders began tweeting on June 10 and 11, contending that a clip of the show was being circulated with an abusive term inserted, which was not present in the original footage.
