The Supreme Court of India on Thursday rejected Facebook’s plea to quash the summons issued by the Delhi Legislative Assembly’s Committee on Peace and Harmony for inquiry related to the Delhi riots in February 2020.

The Committee on Peace and Harmony was created in March 2020 to consider the factors and situations which have the potential to disturb communal harmony in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It was also created to suggest measures to eliminate such factors and deal with such situations, so as to establish harmony among different religious or linguistic communities or social groups.

The committee issued a summon for appearance to Facebook India Managing Director Ajit Mohan in an inquiry related to the Delhi riots. Facebook India argued that the Legislative Assembly creating a panel to conduct an inquiry against non-members is not a legislative function. The court rejected the argument and held that the members and non-members both can be called before the committee and depose an oath.

The court said that the legislative powers of the assembly cannot be confined to only enacting laws. They also have inquisitorial and recommendatory powers which can be utilized for better governance. Thus, water-tight compartmentalization of the assembly’s core/essential and non-essential functions is not advisable by the court. According to the court, the committee must act as per its functional mandate specified by the assembly or the assembly must not lack jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter.

The court also emphasised the role played by Facebook in disseminating information and observed that it plays an active role and is not as innocuous while dealing with the party content. The court in its judgement made reference to Facebook’s role by disseminating misinformation and posts in ethnic cleansing in Myanmar and violence in Sri Lanka which fueled the violence.

The court also referred to misinformation in influencing results of the 2016 US presidential election and Brexit referendum. It observed that social media provides a platform that can ensure equal and open dialogue between citizens and policymakers, but it can also be used as a disruptive tool by various extremists groups which aim to spread misinformation.

The court further clarified that the committee cannot act as a prosecuting agency and findings and recommendations can be used to maintain law and order. The court’s decision quashing the pleading against the summons made it clear that Facebook’s role as a platform provider was seriously considered by the court while accounting for the complexity of communal tensions and their wide-ranging ramifications on the citizens.