Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questions locus of X Corp to approach Karnataka High Court under right to freedom of speech
X has been arguing in the high court that takedown orders should be issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and not Section 79 (3) (b) of the same Act.
Section 69A lays out the grounds and power for a direction to be issued for any agency or intermediary to block certain content, while Section 79(3)(b) provides for removal of the usual protection granted to intermediaries such as X if unlawful material is not removed.
X Corp has also raised concerns regarding the Sahyog Portal for intermediaries, referring to it in an earlier hearing as a 'censorship portal'.
Solicitor General Mehta also questioned the citing of the 'chilling effect' on freedom of speech, and claimed X Corp could not take advantage of it, as it was only a right for users.
While concluding his submissions, he stated, 'X has no locus standi to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, at least claiming Article 19(1)a rights (freedom of speech), or Article 14 rights (right to equality)… the petitioner is an out and out foreign commercial entity. The petitioner has a mere status of intermediary and no more. It is neither a citizen of India nor a natural person… It is for the individual citizens of the country to ventilate their fundamental rights.'
He had earlier stated on the topic of anonymity in the online medium, 'We have opened one account in the name of the 'Supreme Court of Karnataka', and Twitter has opened that account… I can post anything in that, and lakhs of people will say that the Supreme Court of Karnataka has said it. I can remain anonymous or pseudonymous…'
Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, who represents X, had raised objections to this, pointing out that it had not been put on the record.
He stated, 'I am not on who created it, etc… I am only saying, if it is to be relied upon as part of a counsel's submission…'
The judge said it had been taken only in the nature of an illustration, adding, 'You can rest assured that this illustration will not prejudice.'
Raghavan later stated that the account in question had been taken down.
Solicitor General Mehta also made submissions on the topic of the Sahyog Portal. On the question of whether even a metro engineer could be an authorised person to issue notices under the Sahyog Portal, he said, 'He is a designated authority… it is not necessary that police persons are only the designated authority. If this type of situation arises… some authority will have to be designated in each department. What used to happen was anybody used to write a letter. Some police stations in Kolkata etc, would send a letter to Facebook… intermediaries came to us – if you have a portal, intermediaries will know that somebody has authorised this. And the Government will also know about the compliance. It is merely an administrative mechanism. Twitter has chosen not to join… rest of them (intermediaries) have joined the portal.'
Replies in the matter by Senior Advocate K G Raghavan are set to continue on July 25.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
43 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sanjay Raut slams Maharashtra's Public Safety Bill as tool to suppress dissent
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut on Sunday (July 20, 2025) launched a blistering attack on the Devendra Fadnavis government over the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, claiming it poses a direct threat to civil liberties and democratic expression in the State. Writing in his weekly Rokhthok column in the party mouthpiece Saamana, Mr. Raut described the legislation as a tool crafted not for public safety, but to serve political and corporate interests. 'This is not a Jan Suraksha Bill, it is a BJP Suraksha Bill,' he wrote, alleging the government rushed the bill through the legislature without adequate debate. According to Mr. Raut, the Bill—passed during the recently concluded monsoon session of the Assembly—grants sweeping powers to the police and government to arrest individuals for acts deemed to disturb 'public order,' a phrase he said is deliberately vague and prone to misuse. He warned that NGOs, civil society groups, tribal activists, and those opposing large corporate projects like Gautam Adani's mining operations spread from Chandrapur to Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand forests could now be easily targeted under the new law. The Maharashtra Assembly on July 10, 2025, passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, aimed at preventing 'unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar groups'. The Bill will now be tabled in the Legislative Council. 'I assure the House that we will not allow the misuse of this law. I request the House to pass this Bill unanimously,' Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who tabled the Bill. Despite opposition from the Communist Party of India (CPI) and objections by other parties, Speaker Rahul Narvekar declared that the Bill, put to vote through a voice vote, was approved by a majority. With the passage of the Bill in both Houses, Maharashtra will become the fifth State after Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha to enact a public security law. The law will impose punishments ranging from two to seven years in prison for members of unlawful organisations. Offences under the Act will be cognisable and non-bailable in nature, and grant the government the authority to seize and forfeit funds belonging to such groups. Mr. Raut further criticised the government's intent behind the bill, saying it is aimed at silencing protests in areas such as Dharavi, where residents have been resisting redevelopment and displacement. 'The Dharavi Rehabilitation Project is the world's biggest land scam. The original residents will be uprooted from their rightful place and the leaders who are fighting for their rights will be labelled as 'Urban Naxalites' and imprisoned under the act. If people cannot protest peacefully against injustice, what remains of democracy?' the column said. Highlighting the double standards of the ruling coalition, Raut questioned why the government was turning a blind eye to hate speeches and violent acts by right-wing elements, while seeking to criminalise dissent from marginalised communities and activists. He also accused the government of using the bill as a pretext to consolidate power before the upcoming civic elections, particularly in Mumbai. 'The law is being used to intimidate those who dare speak against the regime or its business allies,' he claimed. 'Such laws attack the soul of democracy. If this bill becomes law, it will be a dark day for Maharashtra,' he added.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Mafia rule in Haryana, says Cong.; allegations are baseless: BJP govt.
Congress Rajya Sabha MP Randeep Surjewala on Sunday said that Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Saini, who is also the State Home Minister, is a 'complete failure' and should step down immediately, alleging that 'organised crime is the biggest industry in the State today'. Holding a press conference in Chandigarh on the law-and-order situation in the State, Mr. Surjewala said the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has turned Haryana, the land of Bhagwat Gita, into the land of 'Gangs of Wasseypur', saying the State is now ruled by the 'mafias, guns, bullets and ransom' and not the Constitution. Dismissing the allegations, the Saini government termed the Opposition's assertion as 'misleading and factually baseless'. In a statement, the State government said that under its 'zero tolerance for crime' policy, it has taken significant and effective measures to strengthen the law and order in Haryana, adding that against previous years, the crime rate has witnessed a marked decline in the State. 'Bid to spread fear' It termed the Opposition's remarks as 'an attempt to spread fear among the public and misguide the citizens'.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Temples of social justice
Recently, a political controversy erupted in Tamil Nadu on the issue of diverting temple funds for building colleges. Beyond the political debates, the issue throws light on a unique social justice model around the regulation of secular practices associated with religion. This model, predominantly developed in the erstwhile Madras Presidency, draws strength from a 200-year-old legislative framework which continues till date. It has gained more acceptance in south India. As elections approach in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, clarity on the issue will help diffuse attempts to polarise voters around it. Religious endowments law Through the Religious Endowment and Escheats Regulation 1817, the East India Company set up the earliest legislative architecture around regulation of religious endowments. When the British Crown assumed direct control over Indian territories in 1858, Queen Victoria issued a proclamation stating that the sovereign would restrict interference in religious affairs. This was necessary as there was concern about losing face from the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny, which was triggered by religious issues. However, the withdrawal of the British government from religious affairs was not complete. In fact, in the Madras Presidency, various British officials argued for continued oversight of religious endowments. Finally, the British government settled for a balanced approach: the sovereign would not interfere with practices that were essentially religious, such as rituals, but would exercise control over the lands and secular aspects of the religious endowments. The idea of the government supervising religious institutions came to be crystallised when the Justice Party was elected in 1920. One of the earliest legislative interventions by the Justicites was Bill No. 12 of 1922: Hindu Religious Endowments Act. When it was introduced in the Madras Legislative Council, it faced opposition, mainly due to the provision in the law that allowed surplus temple funds to be diverted for other purposes. The nub of the issue was whether funds provided to a temple could be used for secular purposes. The matter was debated and settled in 1925, when the law was enacted. Since then, every revised version of the plenary law, including the current law — The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — has retained the provision of surplus funds. Also read | Activist alleges 'criminal misappropriation' of temple funds by T.N. HR&CE Dept, Madras High Court calls for response Section 36 of the 1959 Act permits the trustees of religious institutions to appropriate any surplus funds for any purposes listed under the law, with the prior sanction of the Commissioner. 'Surplus' means any amount remaining after adequate provisions have been made for the maintenance of the temple and training of its officials. The Act also empowers the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to appropriate funds in cases where the original purpose has become impossible to fulfil. Endowments to temples have a long and rich history. Temples received lavish donations from the sovereign rulers from as far back as in 970 AD, when the Chola empire was at its peak. Historian Anirudh Kanisetti writes that Sembiyan Mahadevi, a Chola queen, made strategic donations of land and kind to temples. The practice continued during the Vijayanagara kingdom. Temples were not just places of worship; they were socio-cultural hubs and were also used for educational purposes. This is confirmed by the inscriptions on temple walls and the spacious mandapams (pillared halls) which were used to hold educational or cultural events. So the original intent argument would also support the theory of utilising temple resources for educational purposes. The 1959 Act has been tested and upheld by constitutional courts. Among the permissible uses of surplus funds under the 1959 Act is the establishment and maintenance of universities or colleges (Section 66). These educational institutions are also required to make available the study of the Hindu religion or Hindu temple architecture. Seen within this framework, building colleges from temple funds is not only legal, but a logical extension of these provisions. Social justice legacy The controversy around the use of temple funds cannot be restricted to discussing legal propositions, however; it also carries ideological and sociopolitical significance. In the pre-colonial era, the motivation for the rulers to support large-scale endowments was that the temples acted as channels through which State resources could be allotted for important welfare projects. Through colonial rule, the British East India Company and the Crown viewed sovereign involvement in the management of temple affairs as necessary for reasons of revenue and maintenance of local control. Over the last century, the Self-Respect Movement, which emerged from the Madras Presidency, viewed the regulation of temples and oversight of their resources as a critical feature of anti-caste reforms. Without this, there would have been no temple entry legislation in 1936 and 1947. Today, Tamil Nadu and Kerala are among the few States where governments have appointed priests from backward classes after a prolonged legal struggle. Ultimately, any argument against government control of temple affairs would be striking at the root of social justice. The role of the government in ensuring that surplus funds are appropriated in a lawful manner is settled. Any reversal of this would only result in a set back of the long legacy of social justice and religious reforms that south India has pioneered.
