The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by Twitter challenging the blocking orders issued by the Indian government and has imposed a penalty of Rs 50 lakh on the microblogging platform.

The court concluded that Twitter’s plea lacked merit. Justice Krishna S. Dixit, leading the bench, also ordered Twitter to pay exemplary costs of Rs 50 lakh to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within 45 days. In case of any delay in payment, an additional amount of Rs 5,000 per day would be charged.

The bench remarked, “Twitter has not provided any reasons for failing to comply with the central government’s blocking requests. Twitter is not an ordinary individual or a farmer; it is a billionaire company.”

In dismissing the petition, the bench expressed agreement with the arguments presented by the Union of India. It cited laws from the United States, Australia, and Canada, as well as English and Supreme Court judgments regarding the potential consequences of tweets.

The Karnataka High Court issued its order on Friday, addressing Twitter’s petition that challenged the blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY). Twitter contended that the blocking orders under the IT Act demonstrated an excessive use of power and were disproportionate.

According to Twitter, MeiTY had issued a notice warning of severe consequences for non-compliance with the blocking orders, including the initiation of criminal proceedings and a missed opportunity to comply.

Previously, the Karnataka High Court had issued a notice to the central government regarding the blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which affected nearly 1,100 Twitter accounts. The single division bench, headed by Justice Krishna S. Dixit, made the ruling after hearing arguments from senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Twitter. Rohatgi explained that if the blocking orders were to continue, it would lead to the closure of Twitter’s entire business.

Additionally, he pointed out that according to the rules, reasons for blocking accounts must be recorded and provided to the microblogging platform, which was not being done.