Sahyog Portal is wolf in sheep's clothing: X Corp before Karnataka HC
X has been arguing in the high court that takedown orders should be issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and not 79 (3) (b) of the same Act. It has also objected to the Sahyog Portal for intermediaries, referring to it in an earlier hearing as a 'censorship portal'.
Senior Advocate K G Raghavan Friday began X's rejoinder to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's representation on the Union Government's perspective. Mehta had concluded his representation in the previous hearing.
Commencing his arguments before the High Court, Raghavan stated, 'It (Sahyog) is very innocuously termed, but it is… a wolf in a sheep's garment. There is no dispute that the government can communicate with intermediaries that something may be unlawful… Of course, we will operate within the laws of India. The issue is simply when such a communication results in a loss of safe harbour.'
('Safe harbour' protections shield intermediaries like X from liability regarding content posted on their portals.)
Raghavan added, 'Having given me statutory protection, can you take it away in a manner not known to law?'
He also raised concerns about government officials deciding on legality in the context of Section 79 (3) (b) of the IT Act, arguing, 'An officer sitting in any remote corner of the country may tell you… you will lose your safe harbour… A court order issued by a court of law such as in the nature of interim injunction does not depend on 79 (3) b to be issued.'
Contrary to previous arguments by the Centre, Raghavan argued that safe harbour is a matter of right rather than an exemption.
He later stated, 'We have 980 central statutes, something like 7,500 plus state statutes… an authority can say under any one of these I come to the conclusion that you have done an unlawful act. On my saying so, you lose safe harbour protections… It is unfathomable that these officers will form a conclusion, become judges to say that my action is unlawful or not. What happens to all the authorities under those laws to administer them? They will become redundant.'
The matter is set to be heard next on July 29.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
How Young Is Too Young? India Debates Legal Age For Sexual Consent
New Delhi: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising stood before the Supreme Court of India in the last week on July and made a request that reignited an old and uncomfortable question: should consensual sex between teenagers still be considered a crime? At the center of this storm is one number: 18. That is the age set by Indian law for legally consenting to sex. Jaising argued this threshold may be punishing teenagers instead of protecting them. In her written submission, she urged the court to reconsider how the law treats consensual relationships between adolescents aged 16 to 18. Such relationships, she said, do not fit the definitions of exploitation or abuse. The government disagreed. It fears that lowering the bar could leave minors, those legally not adult, below 18, vulnerable to coercion, manipulation or worse. It argued making room for exceptions could lead to loopholes that might be exploited by traffickers or abusers. But the law, especially the 2012 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, draws no lines between love and violation when it comes to minors. It sees all sexual activity under the age of 18 as criminal, even when both parties consent. This hard line has come under scrutiny from activists, judges and rights groups who believe the law is outdated or at least too rigid. In some cases, they say, parents have used the law to intervene in relationships they disapprove of, especially when caste, religion or class are involved. Many experts say the law has become a tool of control more than protection. The Global Picture and India's Long Trail Consent laws around the world are not the same. In countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, the age is 16. In the United States, it varies state to state. But in India, it is fixed, one rule for all. Back in 1860, when India first codified its criminal laws, the age was 10. In 1940, it was raised to 16. Then came POCSO, which made 18 the new standard. That was over a decade ago. Since then, the conversation has shifted, slowly, painfully but noticeably. The Courts Speak, Then Pause In 2022, the Karnataka High Court stepped in. It suggested that the Law Commission revisit the consent age under POCSO. The court pointed to several cases where teenage couples, a girl just over 16 and a boy barely out of adolescence, had been pulled into criminal trials under the law, even when there was no allegation of force. The Law Commission reviewed the matter but did not recommend lowering the age. Instead, it proposed something else: allowing courts to use 'judicial discretion' in cases involving teenagers. This means judges could consider the nature of the relationship, the age gap and whether coercion was involved before passing judgment. Even without formal legislation, some courts across India have started doing that. They have granted bail, overturned convictions or dismissed charges in cases where evidence showed mutual consent and emotional connection between teenagers. But not every bench agrees. In April, the Madras High Court overturned an acquittal in a case where a 17-year-old girl left home to be with a 23-year-old man. Her family had arranged her marriage elsewhere. The court sentenced the man to 10 years in prison under POCSO. Process as Punishment For Advocate Jaising, this is part of the problem. She said simply giving judges the discretion is not enough. Trials can be long, traumatic and carry the weight of stigma. 'For many people, the process itself becomes the punishment,' she stated. A report from the India Child Protection Fund shows just how overloaded the system is. As of January 2023, nearly 250,000 POCSO cases were pending in special courts created to handle them. Jaising argued for consistency and for a system that does not criminalise teenagers for being teenagers. 'Leaving everything to judicial discretion can result in unequal outcomes,' she warned. A Society in Conflict With Itself This is where India finds itself today caught between the need to protect and the need to understand, the fear of abuse and the reality of young love and between a law that seeks clarity and a society that lives in shades of grey. Lawyer and child rights advocate Bhuvan Ribhu said exceptions cannot be unconditional. He worries about misuse in cases of trafficking or child marriage. He supports discretion, but also faster trials, better rehabilitation of survivors and greater awareness. Not everyone is cautious. Ananashi Ganguly, co-founder of HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, stands with Jaising. 'We cannot avoid reform only because we are afraid of misuse,' she said. According to her, society is changing. The law needs to change with it. As this debate continues, India faces another question: what does protection mean when it becomes punishment? Where does responsibility lie in a law written for children or in a society still learning to talk to them about sex, safety and consent?
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
‘A for Akhilesh', ‘D for Dimple': SP leader booked for politicised alphabets at ‘PDA Pathshala'
An FIR has been lodged against a local Samajwadi Party (SP) leader in Uttar Pradesh's Saharanpur for allegedly teaching children 'politicised alphabets' during a 'PDA Pathshala'. Akhilesh Yadav slams UP govt over FIR: "Even the British didn't file FIRs for studying... BJP's anti-education face exposed. Now they'll be gone forever. Condemnable."(PTI) Police officials said that a complaint was filed alleging that the children were taught "A for Akhilesh", "B for Babasaheb", "D for Dimple," and 'M for Mulayam Singh Yadav', news agency PTI reported on Sunday. SP City Vyom Bindal said that Main Singh, a resident of Kallarpur Gurjar village, submitted the complaint accusing SP leader Farhad Alam Gada of conducting lessons using 'politicised alphabets' at a so-called 'PDA Pathshala'. The matter surfaced after a video – allegedly filmed at Gada's residence in Ramnagar – emerged on social media and quickly went viral. The children seen in the video were reportedly pupils from a private school and appeared to be dressed in their school uniforms. Akhilesh Yadav reacts Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav criticised the state government over the FIR. Responding to the incident, the former chief minister wrote on 'X', 'Even the British did not file an FIR for studying. The anti-education face of the BJP has now been exposed to the public. Now the BJP will be gone forever. Condemnable.' Meanwhile, Farhad Gada defended himself by saying that the "PDA Pathshala" was not solely focused on teaching the alphabet but aimed to familiarise children with the "great men of Samajwadi ideology." He also expressed his plan to establish similar schools throughout the district. 2 SP leaders booked over 'PDA Pathshala', protest against school merger In a separate case, an FIR was filed on Friday against Samajwadi Party leader Rachna Singh Gautam for allegedly holding an unauthorised "PDA Pathshala" outside a government primary school in Shahampur Garhi village, Bilhaur block, Kanpur. Police also booked another SP leader and around a dozen others in Bhadohi for allegedly involving schoolchildren in a protest against the Uttar Pradesh government's plan to merge schools with low enrolment, according to officials. The FIR includes charges of misusing government premises, spreading misinformation, and politicising children. Officials said the "PDA Pathshala" in Bilhaur breached multiple rules, including those under the IT Act and the Right to Education (RTE) Act. Gautam had reportedly conducted similar sessions in other villages too. As per the complaint by the Block Education Officer (BEO), Gautam held the "pathshala" without authorisation from local authorities and went ahead despite objections from the school staff. Children were allegedly taught political slogans and references tied to the SP's PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) campaign near the school premises. BEO Ravi Kumar Singh confirmed that photos and videos were submitted to the district administration. In the visuals, students can be seen reciting SP-related phrases, while some clips also show allegedly incorrect educational content being taught. Singh added that Gautam herself circulated these on social media.
The Hindu
12 hours ago
- The Hindu
Rape and punishment: On the life sentencing of Prajwal Revanna
Powerful perpetrators are rarely made accountable for their actions, and in that backdrop, the conviction and life sentencing of Prajwal Revanna, former Janata Dal (Secular) Member of Parliament and grandson of former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, for a heinous crime comes as a relief. This is the first of the four cases of rape and sexual harassment against the 34-year-old Gowda scion. The former Member of Parliament had raped a 48-year-old domestic worker twice at the family's homes in Hassan and Bengaluru in 2021, and recorded it on his mobile phone. In April 2024, ahead of the general election, explicit clips of his sexual misdemeanours were leaked through pen drives strewn across public places in Hassan, the Gowda home town. In the videos, Revanna's face is not visible, only the women's, a gross violation of their safety and privacy. The former help and other women came forward with their complaints but their agony was far from over. Using political muscle, and aided by his parents, former Minister H.D. Revanna and Bhavani Revanna, he did his best to arm twist the system, threatening a survivor, trying to stop her from testifying. But a Special Investigation Team (SIT) worked with alacrity and he was finally arrested in May 2024. The SIT filed the first charge sheet in August 2024. The video, where the domestic worker is seen pleading with Prajwal Revanna to spare her, DNA analysis and her testimony formed key evidence in the trial which began in May this year. The Special Court of Sessions to hear criminal cases against former and present Members of Parliament and MLAs pronounced the verdict on August 1. The speedy trial and conviction will give hope to other survivors battling for justice in sexual assault cases. The court convicted Revanna on all charges framed against him, including under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman), 506 (criminal intimidation), 201 (disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 66E (violation of privacy) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 376(2) of the IPC states that a person convicted under it 'shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life....' Often, even when multiple complaints are raised, leaders with political clout get away. The laws are in place. All that the government machinery needs to do is act swiftly and sensitively, and create a safe space so that survivors of sexual abuse can come forward without fear.
