In a temporary relief to Twitter India’s Managing Director Manish Maheshwari, the High Court of Karnataka, on Thursday, restrained the Uttar Pradesh police from taking any coercive action against him till June 29 on a criminal case related to the Ghaziabad incident of uploading a video of an assault on an elderly Muslim man.

However, the court said that the Loni Border Police can question Maheshwari, who resides in Bengaluru, through virtual mode, till it decides the legal question on whether the High Court of Karnataka has the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the notice issued by the UP police. Justice G Narendar passed the interim order on a petition filed by Maheshwari, questioning the notice issued to him by Loni Border police on June 18 asking him to join the investigation after he replied to their earlier notice indicating his willingness to cooperate with the investigation through video conference mode.

Related Stories
Ghaziabad assault case: Twitter India MD expected to join probe
In connection with the video of a victim of a purported hate crime
READ NOW
 

Earlier, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh contended that Maheswari is only an employee of Twitter Communications India Pvt Ltd, looking after marketing and sales and has nothing to do with the process of uploading content to Twitter handle as it was controlled by Twitter Inc, US.

Not a director

It was also contended that though Maheshwari has been designated as Managing Director of Twitter India, he is neither the director nor a member of the Board of Directors of the company in terms of the Companies Act 2013.

Nagesh pointed out that the UP police had, on June 17, issued notice through e-mail under Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which meant that they wanted his statement as a witness.

On June 18, Maheshwari replied through e-mail, expressing inability to physically appear for recording statement, but said that he would be available through virtual mode. Within two days, on June 18, Nagesh said the UP police issued a notice through e-mail under Section 41A of the Cr.PC, which means the police were now treating Maheshwari as an accused, instead of a witness. It was also pointed out to the court that Maheswari has not been arraigned as an accused individually in the FIR. The denial to appear through virtual mode for investigation during the current situation is contrary to the apex court’s directions, Nagesh contended.

However, advocate P Prasanna Kumar, appearing for the UP police, raised a preliminary objection, stating that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Karnataka in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. Though the petitioner claims to be a resident of Bengaluru, in the e-mail notice issued to him, the UP police have mentioned his address as Mumbai, the counsel for UP police said.

Keeping open the question of jurisdiction to be argued on June 29, the court, considering the liberty of an individual, directed the UP police not to take coercive action while granting liberty for questioning through virtual mode if necessary. Six individuals, including journalists, Twitter, the and news website The Wire, were among the nine accused named in the FIR by Loni Bazar police over uploading and circulation of a video, which the police claimed was done to cause communal unrest.

Related Topics