Delhi HC Fines Woman Seeking To Implead Elon Musk: 10 Things To Know

A woman who had approached the Delhi High Court recently claiming that Twitter suspended her account without prior notice also sought to implead Elon Musk for the same. Musk, who took over as the new chief of the micro-blogging site, has been garnering mixed reactions to his takeover.

While the woman demanded action through her application, the High Court not only dismissed her claims stating that the application was misconceived and did not require further action but also levied a fine upon her.

The Delhi High Court directed the woman to pay a penalty of 25,000 rupees after she sought to implead Elon Musk on the grounds that her Twitter account got suspended without prior notice.

Suggested reading: Amber Heard Twitter Profile Disappears Following Ex-Elon Musk’s Takeover

Woman Seeks To Implead Elon Musk: Things to know

1. The woman approached the Delhi High Court through her lawyer counsel Raghav Awasthi with an application that sought to implead new Twitter chief Elon Musk, according to reports.

2. She claimed that the microblogging site suspended her account without giving her notice or informing her about her. She mentioned in the application that this move by Twitter lays huge effects on her right to freedom of speech.

3. The application stated that Elon Musk holds a different stand when it comes to free speech and that as long as the speech, made by anyone, does not violate the laws of the country, the platform should not curtain any content posted by users.

4. The woman disclosed that she used her Twitter account to post educational content on women's rights, literature, Indian culture, non-violence, equality and politics. She said that she was not given a chance to be informed about her account suspension.

5. The Court's single judge bench on the matter comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed her application stating that it was misconceived to a large extent.

6. The woman's counsel stated that Musk was not just the director of Twitter but also held substantial shares in the company directly making him a necessary partner in this matter.

7. The Justice dismissed the application plea mentioning that an application like this was not necessarily observing that the entity Twitter stands represented automatically, thereby directing her to pay a fine of 25,000 rupees.

8. Responding to the woman's plea, the Union government stated that if some parts of the content are unlawful, the platform holds the authority to take proportionate action of removing that information alone, without suspending the entire account of the user.

9. The Union government also stated that social media platforms need to respect the fundamental rights of the citizens and suspending the entire account of the users does not hold true in this regard.

10.  The Centre suggested that suspending a user account must be considered as a last resort after the platforms have made all their effort to maintain lawful content. Finally, the suggestion made was for platforms to follow the principles of fundamental rights of users.