Solicitor general creates fake ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka' X account to prove misinformation point, deletes later
Mehta handed his mobile phone to justice M Nagaprasanna to show the fake account, complete with the court's photograph and official-looking handle, arguing it proved how easily false content could spread online.
'We have opened one account in the name of Supreme Court of Karnataka. And Twitter (X) has opened that account. And it is a verified account by Twitter (X)... now I can post anything in that, and lakhs and lakhs of people who view that account will say Supreme Court of Karnataka has said this,' Mehta told the court.
The demonstration was meant to underscore the need for stronger government oversight of social media platforms. In response, X Corp's counsel, senior advocate KG Raghavan, questioned the propriety of creating fake handles without officially placing them on record.
Then, as the two-hour hearing concluded, Raghavan announced X had already suspended the fictional account.
'Just to end on a good note, that account has been suspended. We are a responsible organisation,' Raghavan told the court, much to the amusement of the bench. He also clarified that contrary to the solicitor general's claim, the account was not verified by X.
Mehta clarified the account was 'purely representational' for 'demonstrative purposes' with no posts made from it, but used the episode to advance broader arguments about user anonymity and platform accountability.
'If a user posts illegal content and is anonymous, who will the aggrieved party sue? X Corp has no officers in India except a grievance officer. Where is the accountability?' he asked.
The courtroom drama unfolded during X's legal challenge to the Union government's Sahyog portal, which the company calls a 'censorship portal' that bypasses constitutional safeguards. X argues the portal allows thousands of government officials to issue content takedown orders without proper oversight.
Mehta criticised X for resisting Indian regulatory frameworks while complying with local laws elsewhere. 'All other intermediaries have joined the Sahyog portal. Only X Corp has refused. They object to even a non-binding mechanism,' he said. The government has revealed that 38 intermediaries including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram have joined the portal, with Meta currently testing integration. X remains the most prominent holdout. The government created Sahyog portal to handle notices under Section 79(3)(b) for quick action against illegal online content. The portal is meant to streamline the process by allowing a number of authorised officials— at the state and central levels — to dispatch notices to intermediaries who are onboarded onto the platform.
The solicitor general also challenged X's fundamental right to bring the case, arguing the platform lacked legal standing as a foreign company not incorporated in India. The government contended that constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21 extend primarily to Indian citizens and, in certain cases, to entities incorporated within the country. Additionally, Mehta dismissed X's free speech arguments, contending the platform cannot invoke constitutional protections since it claims to be merely an intermediary. 'They say they are not speakers or authors of the posts, only intermediaries. If that is true, how can they invoke free speech rights?' he asked. The case stems from X's March petition challenging the government's directive mandating social media platforms join the Sahyog portal. The company argues the government is creating parallel blocking mechanisms under Section 79(3)(b) that bypass safeguards required under Section 69A, which the Supreme Court upheld in the landmark Shreya Singhal case.
X has previously objected to what its lawyers called takedown orders from 'every Tom, Dick, and Harry' government official, drawing sharp criticism from government representatives.
The Karnataka High Court will hear the case next on July 25, when X will file its rejoinder submissions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 minutes ago
- First Post
AI171 crash: Probe pending in India, new US aviation regulator boss rules out fuel switch glitch
Commenting on the devastating Air India plane crash, the new head of the US's Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), Bryan Bedford, dismissed the possibility of an inadvertent movement of the aircraft's fuel control switch. read more The wreckage of the Air India plane that crashed moments after taking off from the Ahmedabad airport, lies on a building, in Ahmedabad. Both switches feeding fuel to the two engines of Air India flight 171 were cut off followed before the plane crashed in Ahmedabad, seconds after taking off, the first investigation report into the crash has revealed. PTI As the investigation into the Air India 171 plane crash continues, the new head of the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ruled out mechanical issues as the cause behind the crash in Ahmedabad. The new FAA boss went on to suggest that the fuel control switches on the doomed AI 171 were manually moved, hinting at a pilot error. In a statement on the matter, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford dismissed the possibility of an inadvertent movement of the aircraft's fuel control switch. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We can say with a high level of confidence it doesn't appear to be a mechanical issue with the Boeing fuel control unit. We feel very comfortable that this isn't an issue with inadvertent manipulation of fuel control,' Reuters quoted FAA administrator Bryan Bedford as saying. Meanwhile, Indian authorities, who are currently investigating the matter, requested patience for the final report. They urged both the public and experts to refrain from drawing conclusions and did not comment on Bedford's recent remarks. The matter is still under investigation As per the preliminary report released by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner's fuel supply to engines had been cut off, causing it to crash. While it is not concluded what caused the fuel switches' position to change, soon after the report was released, Western media started alluding to a pilot error. In the report, it was also mentioned that the cockpit voice recording revealed that one pilot asked the other why he had moved the switches, to which the latter replied he hadn't. In light of this, several Western news outlets started speculating about the mental health of the pilots and started to report more about their personal lives. Amid the chaos, Boeing is maintaining a cautious stance on the matter. Reacting to Bedford's statement, Boeing said: 'We'll defer to the FAA for any comments on this.' According to Reuters, the FAA chief made the remarks while he was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of an air show in Wisconsin. In support of this assertion, Bedford cited an evaluation conducted by FAA employees who had 'taken the units out, tested them and had inspectors get on aircraft and review them'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hans India
11 minutes ago
- Hans India
DefMin signs Rs 2K-cr deal with BEL
New Delhi: The Ministry of Defence on Friday signed a contract with public-sector defence company Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) for the procurement of Air Defence Fire Control Radars for the Indian Army, worth approximately Rs2,000 crore, under the Buy (Indian-Indigenously Designed Developed and Manufactured) category. With a minimum 70 per cent indigenous content, these Fire Control Radars will be able to detect all forms of airborne threats, including fighter aircraft, attack helicopters and enemy drones. This would mark a significant milestone in the modernisation of the Air Defence Regiments and enhance the Indian Army's operational readiness, while contributing to the economic growth of the nation, according to a Defence Ministry statement. The contract was signed and exchanged by senior officials of the Ministry of Defence and BEL in the presence of Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh. The procurement marks a pivotal step towards empowering indigenous defence industries by encouraging Indian MSMEs through components manufacturing and raw material supply, the statement said. The government is keen to promote the country's defence industry, and earlier this month Defence Acquisition Council, under the chairmanship of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, gave the go-ahead for 10 proposals to purchase military hardware, including missiles and electronic warfare systems, worth approximately Rs 1.05 lakh crore through indigenous sourcing. India's indigenous defence production has surged to an all-time high of Rs1.46 lakh crore, with exports increasing to a record Rs24,000 crore in 2024-25, according to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh.'Our defence production, which was only Rs43,000 crore 10 to 11 years ago, has now crossed a record figure of Rs1,46,000 crore, with the private sector's contribution of over Rs32,000 crore. Our defence exports, which were around Rs600-700 crore 10 years ago, have surpassed a record figure of Rs24,000 crore today,' the minister stated in his address at the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) annual summit recently. He described Make-in-India as crucial for security and prosperity, stating that the use of indigenous systems during Operation Sindoor has proved that India has the power to penetrate any armour of the enemy.
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Sahyog is ‘wolf in sheep's clothing', X Corp tells Karnataka HC
X Corp on Friday accused the Union government of using the 'innocuously named' Sahyog portal as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' to issue illegal content blocking orders that bypass statutory safeguards, escalating its legal challenge against what it calls an unconstitutional censorship mechanism. Sahyog is 'wolf in sheep's clothing', X Corp tells Karnataka HC Appearing before the Karnataka High Court, senior advocate KG Raghavan argued further on the company's core content that the government was misusing Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules to circumvent due process protections upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shreya Singhal case. 'It is innocuously named but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We are a responsible business and we will abide by the law of every country we operate in. But the question is what is the correct law?' Raghavan told Justice M Nagaprasanna. 'The same grounds of sovereignty, integrity, public order are used under Section 69A. Then why use Section 79 at all? This amounts to a dangerous circumvention of law,' he argued. The hearing represented the latest round in X's challenge to the government's directive mandating social media platforms join the Sahyog portal, a centralised system for content takedown requests that the company argues violates constitutional principles. X's core argument centres on the interpretation of Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides 'safe harbour' protection to intermediaries from legal liability for user-generated content. The platform contends this provision is a protective shield rather than an empowering mechanism for government officials to issue takedown orders. In detailed written submissions filed on Friday, seen by HT, X introduced a 'preceding order' theory, arguing that intermediaries lose safe harbour protection only when there is a court order, a Section 69A order, or another statute that explicitly authorises blocking. The company argued that 'unlawful act' in Section 79(3)(b) must refer only to those three circumstances. 'It is pertinent to mention that the government adopted this interpretation only recently — 25 years after S.79 was enacted and 16 years after the current version of S.79(3)(b) went into effect,' X stated in its submissions, adding that thousands of officers across central ministries, state agencies and police departments now believe Section 79 gives them authority to direct content blocking. 'If your interpretation of Section 79 is accepted, then any officer in this country can decide what is lawful or not, on a purely subjective basis. This is absurd and shocking. It allows officers to be both accuser and judge,' Raghavan argued in court. The government has revealed that 38 intermediaries including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram have joined the portal, with Meta currently testing integration. X remains the most prominent holdout, arguing the system allows thousands of government officials to issue content blocking orders without proper judicial oversight. Raghavan emphasised that empowering multiple government officials to issue takedown notices based on their discretion erodes the statutory safe harbour protection granted to intermediaries. He maintained that Section 79 should be understood as 'a statutory right, not an exemption granted at the government's discretion.' 'The fear psychosis being created undermines constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 19,' he said, arguing that procedural safeguards under Section 69A remain the only lawful route to block online content. The arguments built on X's broader constitutional challenge that the government is creating parallel blocking mechanisms that bypass safeguards required under Section 69A, which the Supreme Court upheld in Shreya Singhal provided proper due process protections are followed. X's written submissions also addressed several government arguments made in earlier hearings. The company rejected claims that internet speech should be subject to greater restrictions than traditional media, noting this argument was 'narrated by them in Shreya Singhal, which was rejected then.' X maintained that 'the right to free speech remains the same across all mediums, and the broader reach of the internet does not justify lowering the threshold for restrictions.' The platform also disputed the government's contention that the Shreya Singhal precedent is no longer valid because it relied on the US case Reno v. ACLU, which they claim has been questioned in later American rulings. X argued that Shreya Singhal 'remains binding in India under Article 141, no matter the status of Reno in the US,' emphasising that only a larger Supreme Court bench can overturn the precedent. The platform also cited three US Supreme Court cases to argue that laws like Rule 3(1)(d) and systems like the Sahyog Portal, which 'shift the burden onto people to prove their speech is lawful, violate the First Amendment [of the American constitution].' The Karnataka High Court will continue hearing the matter on July 29, when senior advocate KG Raghavan is expected to present arguments based on X's comprehensive written submissions filed on Friday.
