Later last week, an Indian Civil Judge Sonia Sheokand of a district court in Gurugram, a satellite city in the capital of India, had issued summons for the Chinese e-commerce mogul Alibaba alongside its founder Jack Ma and about a dozen of individual or company units to appear in the court on July 29 on a case in which a former Indian executive of Alibaba had sued the company for being wrongfully fired after opposing the company view to censor anti-Beijing contents and to lay off fake news on company apps, court documents had revealed.
In point of fact, latest lawsuit on Alibaba came forth weeks after the Indian Government had banned the Chinese e-commerce behemoth’s Alibaba UC News, UC Browser alongside 57 other Chinese apps following a border clash between the troops of the countries, eventually stepping up heats between the long-standing hostility between the nuclear-powered neighbours, while after the announcement of the wide-spread ban on a number of popular Chinese apps in India, New Delhi had asked for written answers from all of the affected Chinese companies asking whether they had been censoring anti-Beijing contents and acting on behalf of the Chinese Government.
Alibaba used to censor contents unfavourable to China, alleges plaintiff
More importantly, the plaintiff Pushpandra Singh Parmar, a former employee of Alibaba’s UC Web, had accused the company of censoring contents that might be deemed unfavourable to China and showcasing false news at its UC News and UC Browser in order “to cause social and political turmoil,” a court filing dated July 20 had unveiled.
Besides, Parmar, who used to work as an associate director at the UC Web Office in Gurugram until October 2017, had been seeking $268,000 in liabilities due to his unlawful ousting.
Nonetheless, as a consequential repercussion of the lawsuit that alleged the Chinese e-commerce titan of displaying fake news in order to cause social unrest within India, UC India was quoted saying in a statement later last week “(The company) had been unwavering in its commitment to the India market and the welfare of its local employees, and its policies are in compliance with local laws. We are unable to comment on ongoing litigation. ”