X opposes global takedown of content considered defamatory to journalist Rajat Sharma

NEW DELHI: Social media giant 'X' Corp has told the Delhi High Court that a direction to remove from all countries posts considered defamatory by journalist Rajat Sharma would be contrary to international law and principles of comity of nations and encroach upon the sovereignty of all other countries.

In an affidavit filed in the high court in response to a contempt application moved by Sharma, X said the argument that a court can decide what information people in all other countries can see would mean that foreign courts like the courts of Pakistan and China could dictate what the citizens of India can or cannot access on the Internet, based on the laws of Pakistan or China.

"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 said, adding that X fully respects the right of India to enforce its laws within its jurisdiction.

It said that a direction to remove the posts in all countries, as opposed to restricting the posts in India, would be contrary to 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 inter alia in the United States," the affidavit filed on Tuesday said.

It claimed that Sharma's attempt to selectively target X is meritless because other websites did not globally remove the video that he has sought to censor.

Initially, Sharma filed a defamation suit and sought 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.

The journalist has claimed that he was defamed by the Congress leaders over use of "abusive language" during his show on the Lok Sabha elections result day.

Later, Sharma filed a contempt plea claiming that the Congress leaders and X have deliberately and willfully not complied with the judicial order directing them to remove the alleged offensive social media posts against him.

In its response to the contempt plea which is listed for hearing on August 22, X said the injunction order's direction to 'remove' or 'block' the URLs does not require it to remove the posts on a global scale or make them inaccessible to every human 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 would encroach upon the sovereignty of all other countries, including the United States, where different legal standards and protections apply," it said.

It further said the principle of state sovereignty in international law establishes 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-settled principle of international comity, which mandates that national courts should consider the impact of their decisions on the rights of the nationals of the foreign jurisdictions and also 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 in passing the orders having international footprints which are otherwise incapable of being enforced globally," the affidavit said.

It said since an Indian court will not recognise or execute any foreign judgment which conflicts with the local laws in India, it is just and fair for the Indian courts not to pass any orders that may be in conflict with foreign laws.

This court should hold that X has complied with the injunction order by geo-blocking the URLs in India and the contempt plea filed by Sharma be dismissed, it urged.

The controversy arose after 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 said while the debate was happening on the channel on the evening of June 4, the Congress leaders started tweeting on June 10 and 11.

He had contended that a clip of the show was being circulated where an abusive term had been inserted whereas the original footage did not have any such content.