New Delhi: The central government Thursday contested the proceedings initiated by the Delhi Assembly’s Peace and Harmony Committee against Facebook and its India vice president Ajit Mohan in relation to the February riots, saying the panel did not have jurisdiction.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing before a Supreme Court bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul, said the inquiry pertained to law and order in Delhi, a subject that was not within the purview of the Delhi government.
The court was hearing petitions by Facebook and Mohan, challenging the summons issued by the Delhi Assembly panel.
“Our stand is that ‘public order’ and ‘police’ are within the domain of the Union of India and the Assembly has no jurisdiction to issue the summons,” Mehta told the court.
Mohan and Facebook had moved the Supreme Court on 22 September challenging the 10 September and 18 September notices issued by the Peace and Harmony Committee.
In response, the Delhi Assembly had informed the court that it did not summon Facebook and Mohan as accused but only as witnesses to elicit a suggestion on how social media platforms can be utilised to strengthen unity among citizens.
This stance was also spelled out in the panel’s affidavit filed in the top court on 6 October, in which it has said that the two petitioners cannot claim the right to remain silent or be left alone in response to the summons asking them to depose before a lawful committee of an empowered legislature.
On Thursday, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi reiterated the committee’s affidavit before the court, clarifying that there was never an intention to take coercive action against Mohan or Facebook.
But the two petitioners, through senior advocate Harish Salve, disputed Singhvi’s contention, objecting to the “coercive tone” of the panel’s affidavit and refused to appear before the committee.
The bench did not proceed with the hearing and adjourned it to 2 December, allowing the parties in the case, in the meantime, to file their written submissions. It also extended the court’s 23 September order, restraining the committee to not hear the matter until the case was pending.
Also read: Delhi Police’s riots charge sheet is a parody scripted to prove the Boss is always right
‘Facebook assisted Parliamentary committee’
The hearing commenced with Justice Kaul asking Singhvi whether the committee had followed the court’s earlier suggestion to issue a “better notice” to Facebook.
“I have done better,” the senior counsel replied, reading out the Delhi government’s affidavit, according to which Mohan has been summoned as a witness.
“The scope of the power (of the committee) is recommendatory to make positive recommendations for the peace and harmony of NCT of Delhi in future,” Singhvi told the bench.
According to procedure, he added, the committee may report to the Delhi Assembly speaker if Facebook and Mohan fail to appear. “The speaker may refer it to the Privileges Committee, which may issue a privilege notice. It is all speculation,” the senior counsel contended.
On Facebook and Mohan’s stance, Singhvi said, “This very Facebook has assisted a Parliamentary Committee. But they say they will not appear before us. This is pitching it too high.”
‘Issues relating to Delhi’s power and jurisdiction may arise’
Justice Kaul seemed to disagree with Singhvi’s stance and told him that response to the summons depended on their nature.
Advocate Salve also complained against the panel’s claim that Facebook and its VP had no right to remain silent. “They have set up an inquiry committee which wants to ask ‘how dare you?’ I am not willing to appear before such a committee,” he argued.
Singhvi, however, said nobody should be allowed to approach the top court to seek an advance ruling without appearing before the assembly panel.
The bench then said it will view this dispute in the context of the powers and jurisdiction Delhi has under the Constitution.
“The crux of the issue might be part of the issue which has already travelled to the SC on the powers of Delhi assembly,” the court said, referring to an earlier constitution bench judgment that gave a ruling on who has administrative authority to take decisions in Delhi.
Also read: Prashant Bhushan, Harsh Mander & other activists want inquiry into Delhi Police’s riots probe
It is high time Sri Raghav Chaddha becomes less arrogant. It appears the prominence he gets in TV debates has gone to his head. Calm down, Raghav. You will travel long distance.