Case Title: Ajit Mohan & Others v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi and others
The Supreme Court rejected to vacate the summons issued to Facebook India Managing Director Ajit Mohan by the Delhi Assembly Committee's Peace and Harmony Committee, which sought his attendance in an inquiry into the Delhi Riots.
"The capital of the country can ill-afford any repetition of the occurrence and thus, the role of Facebook in this context must be looked into by the powers that be. It is in this background that the Assembly sought to constitute a peace and harmony committee – whether it has the legislative competence or not is an aspect we will deal with it under the relevant head. The Assembly being a local legislative and governance body, it cannot be said that their concerns were misconceived or illegitimate," the judge observed.
However, the Court ruled that the Delhi Assembly's investigation cannot intrude on "prohibited domains" such as law and order and criminal prosecution because these are subjects of the Union Government. As a result, the Court ruled that any petitioner's representative may refuse to answer any committee question if it falls within the prohibited domains.
The Court said that Facebook Head's argument was "premature" and "preemptive," because nothing had happened other than being called to attend. There is no precedent for interfering with an assembly action at a critical time. The Court further decided that the legislative function is only one of the assembly's functions. Its domain also includes the investigation of complex social problems.
The Court rejected the contention that the Delhi Assembly lacks legislative authority to investigate the riots. The committee has the authority to gather information on any problem linked to peace and harmony without infringing on any Union subject covered by the 7th schedule. Because of the nature of the rioting, the Delhi Assembly, without entering any sphere of the Union under the 7th Schedule, can investigate the matter. Larger conceptions of "peace and harmony" extend beyond "law and order."
The bench, however, took issue with key claims made by the Committee at its news conference against Facebook. It emphasized that the Committee lacks the authority to prosecute. The committee cannot act as a prosecuting agency and file extra charge sheets on its own. The Assembly has no authority over law and order or social media intermediaries.
As a result, the Court ruled that any petitioner's representative may refuse to answer any committee question if it falls within the prohibited domains.