&w=3840&q=100)
Elon Musk's X can't push unlawful content citing 'safe harbour' clause: Indian govt to court
A 3D-printed miniature model of Elon Musk and the X logo are seen in this illustration taken January 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
On Thursday, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court that allowing the proliferation of unlawful content on social media in the name of 'free speech' endangers the country's democracy. According to The Times of India, the Centre accused Elon Musk's X, formerly known as Twitter, of attempting to escape accountability.
The authorities noted that Musk's company is doing so by sheltering itself under the IT Act's 'safe harbour' protection, The Times of India reported. In the letter to the Karnataka High Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the constitutional protection to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) must not be misunderstood as absolute protection even of unlawful content.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'Constitutional jurisprudence clearly differentiates between protected speech that contributes meaningfully to democratic discourse and unlawful speech that undermines societal stability and individual rights,' Mehta said in the letter, according to a report by the TOI.
'Safe Harbour is not a right but a privilege'
The solicitor general noted that the 'Safe Harbour' provision in the IT Act is 'not an absolute right' but a 'privilege contingent upon strict adherence to statutory duties.' The statement from the Centre came after X moved the High Court seeking to restrain government departments from taking coercive action against the social media platform.
'Unlawful and unjustified orders harm the X platform and its ability to operate. The issuance of information blocking orders without following due process of law, and in violation of the IT Act and the Constitution, violates X's right to equality under Article 14 and detrimentally impacts its business," the Centre said in a written submission to the Karnataka High Court.
'Proliferation of what can be termed as unlawful content on social media platforms poses an unprecedented threat to public discourse, democracy and societal stability.' 'Social media intermediaries possess an unparalleled ability to amplify information instantaneously, without traditional barriers like language or geographical limitations, and thus carry significant responsibilities,' Mehta wrote in the submission.
Why it matters
The government's stance on the matter can have implications for all social media platforms operating in India. This also goes hand in hand with the calls to remove Section 230 of the US's Communications Decency Act, from which social media giants derive their immunity.
In the submission, the government argued that X attempted to present 'safe harbour' as an absolute right, devoid of any corresponding duties. 'Such a stand fundamentally misconstrues the very basis of this legal protection. 'Safe harbour' is not a constitutional guarantee but a statutory privilege, specifically designed to foster responsible conduct,' the submission said.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Centre said that social media platforms use 'amplification' mechanisms to push visibility of a particular type of view. 'The algorithms used by intermediaries actively curate and boost content, shaping public opinion and significantly influencing social harmony or disorder. This active role demands heightened accountability, necessitating robust regulation specifically tailored for social media, distinct from traditional media,' the submission reads.
With inputs from agencies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
HC issues notice to Punjab Govt over failure to implement hybrid hearings in State Information Commission
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Thursday issued notice to the Punjab Government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging non-compliance with Supreme Court directives mandating hybrid hearings before the Punjab State Information Commission. The PIL, filed by 24-year-old RTI activist and advocate Nikhil Thamman, challenged the Commission's failure to provide virtual hearing options and related digital infrastructure as required under the apex court's 2023 ruling in Kishan Chand Jain v Union of India. Appearing in person, Thamman argued that the Commission's continued reliance on physical hearings effectively deprived citizens, especially those from remote and rural areas, of access to quasi-judicial proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner submitted that despite the Supreme Court's clear directions requiring all State Information Commissions to offer hybrid hearing options and include virtual hearing links in daily cause lists by December 31, 2023, Punjab had failed to implement even the most basic requirements. Citing a legal notice he had served on June 28, 2025, to the Punjab Government and the State Information Commission, Thamman stated that no corrective steps had been taken despite warnings of potential contempt proceedings. Thamman further pointed out that the commission had failed to establish an e-filing mechanism and electronic service of RTI documents — provisions that were central to both the Supreme Court's directives and the RTI Act's emphasis on accessibility and time-bound redressal. Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, before whom the matter was listed, issued notice to the State and posted the case for further hearing on September 15. The PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, raised two principal questions: whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Punjab State Information Commission to implement hybrid hearings across all proceedings, and whether virtual links should be mandatorily included in daily cause lists to ensure citizen participation through video conferencing. Thamman submitted that video conferencing facilities installed in District Administrative Complexes across Punjab remained largely non-functional, thereby defeating the purpose of decentralised justice. He contended that the commission's inaction amounted to a violation not only of the RTI Act but also of citizens' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution. The PIL also drew attention to the real-life hardships imposed by the current system: many citizens from distant districts had to travel to Chandigarh merely to mark attendance or appear for brief hearings, often at considerable financial and logistical cost. In contrast, Thamman maintained that the widespread availability of smartphones and video conferencing applications made hybrid hearings both feasible and necessary. Thamman, a resident of Banur in SAS Nagar district, sought comprehensive relief from the High Court, including the implementation of hybrid hearings, inclusion of virtual hearing links in all cause lists, establishment of operational e-filing and e-service mechanisms, and any other directions the court deemed appropriate to secure effective enforcement of the RTI Act in Punjab.
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Karnataka HC sets out guidelines for compassionate appointment, directs state to prepare standard operating procedure
The Karnataka High Court on July 25 set out guidelines for compassionate job appointments, including assistance for widows and illiterate persons, while also directing the state to prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) for making such appointments. A bench of Justices Mohammad Nawaz and K S Hemalekha of the high court's Kalaburagi bench stated that regardless of whether applications are in the correct format or not, the authorities have to acknowledge them in 30 days along with information on the status of the application, any issues with documentation/formatting, limitation period, and rights of other dependents. The final decision has to be rendered within 90 days with a reasoned order. The court also directed that proactive steps have to be taken to assist widows and illiterate persons. The order came in a case related to the widow of Raja Patel Banda, who was a peon at the Jewargi tahsildar's office and died while on duty in 2014. Although his widow applied for a pension, retirement benefits, and a job for one of her sons on compassionate grounds, there was no official response. Later, the state rejected an application that one of her sons submitted in October 2015 on the grounds of his having crossed the age limit. In February 2017, her younger son applied for a job on compassionate grounds. This application was rejected as, according to the regulations, any such application had to be submitted within one year of the death of the employee. The family successfully challenged the rejection before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Kalaburagi), after which the state approached the high court, arguing that the appointment was not a matter of right and had to follow rules concerning the time period, failing which there was a possibility of claims being put forward indefinitely. On the other hand, the opposing counsel stated that it was an exceptional case where the widow, who was illiterate, had made an application within a year of her husband's death, expressing a clear intent. It was the duty of the relevant department to have guided her regarding the technicalities, he further argued. The court agreed, stating, 'The intent was unambiguous. The authorities had the opportunity to consider and guide the family. The applications submitted by the widow ought to have been rejected or communicated to her. There was no intimation whatsoever….Had she been informed, she could have applied or rather asked her sons to make necessary applications within time.' The court dismissed the state's petition against the appointment, noting that the state has a duty to ensure procedural fairness in such cases. The court also said, 'A uniform Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and training of officials handling compassionate appointments should be made by the Government to ensure no procedural lapses.'
Scroll.in
16 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
No such category as ‘suspicious voters' under law, poll body tells Rajya Sabha
The Election Commission on Thursday clarified that there is no category of 'suspicious voters' under the 1951 Representation of the People Act. The poll panel's statement was conveyed to the Rajya Sabha through a written reply by Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal amid the ongoing special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. Meghwal was responding to a question from Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman, who sought to know whether such voters had participated in the 2024 Lok Sabha election. The clarification comes even as the poll body is reviewing voter rolls in Bihar, with one of the reasons it had cited being the alleged inclusion of foreign illegal immigrants over time. In response to a separate question from Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Kumar Jha, Meghwal also said that the process of linking Aadhaar cards with the Election Photo Identity Cards has not yet begun. He added that following a 2021 amendment to the Representation of the People Act, the poll body began collecting Aadhaar details from voters on a voluntary basis starting August 1, 2022. The clarification comes four months after the Election Commission announced plans to start the process to link voter ID cards with the Aadhaar database. In a press note on March 18, the electoral body had said that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had discussed the matter with senior officials from the Union Home Ministry, Legislative Department and Unique Identification Authority of India. The Election Commission had clarified that under Article 326 of the Constitution, only Indian citizens are eligible to vote, while the Aadhaar card serves only as proof of identity, not citizenship. The decision came weeks after the Trinamool Congress and the Congress alleged that at least 129 voters in Haryana and West Bengal had the same EPIC number, which, according to the commission, is supposed to be unique for every voter. The Congress had called it a 'deliberate act of voter list manipulation' to aid the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.
