Social media monitors us constantly, need to regulate: Centre tells HC
The hearing, before Justice N Nagaprasanna, pertained to X Corp's challenge to the applicability of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. It had earlier contended that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, often used to justify takedown directives, cannot serve as an independent source of executive power to block content. It said that blocking orders can only be issued through due process under Section 69A read with the IT Rules and not via direct instructions under Section 79. Highlighting the extent of digital surveillance, Mehta told the court: 'Today, even a smart TV with a camera is a potential surveillance tool. Many public figures ask visitors to leave their phones outside because these devices have effectively become recorders.
We are being continuously monitored by social media,' he said. The Solicitor General also touched upon the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence, calling it a developmental boon but also a potential hazard.He noted that legal frameworks must evolve to address the threats posed by technological advances. Dismissing X Corp's claim that it enjoys rights under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), Mehta asserted that such protections are reserved for individuals, not platforms. 'X is simply a notice board. Only those who post content can claim Article 19 protections,' he said, adding that the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India had clarified that content on public platforms can be regulated in public interest. The case will be heard again on July 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
43 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Bengal governor returns bill proposing death penalty for rape convicts to state for reconsideration
West Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose has returned the 2024 Aparajita Bill to the state government to consider the objections raised by the Centre about the death penalty provisions in the draft legislations, The Hindu reported on Friday. One of the proposed amendments seeks to increase the punishment for rape under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita from the current minimum 10-year imprisonment to life imprisonment or death penalty. The Ministry of Home Affairs has said that the change is ' excessively harsh and disproportionate', The Indian Express quoted an unidentified Raj Bhawan official as saying. Additionally, the bill proposes making the death penalty mandatory in cases involving the victim's death or persistent vegetative state under Section 66 of the BNS. 'The ministry has raised concerns over the removal of judicial discretion in such cases,' The Indian Express quoted the official as saying. The state government has not commented on the matter so far. The West Bengal Assembly had unanimously passed the Aparajita Women and Child West Bengal Criminal Laws Amendment Bill in September 2024. The state government had said that the legislation was aimed at creating a ' safer environment for women and children ' by ensuring more stringent punishments for rape and related crimes. The bill sought to amend sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pertaining to punishments for acid attacks, rape, rape and murder, gangrape, repeat sex offenders and the disclosure of a rape victim's identity. It also seeks to do away with the concessions granted to juvenile sex offenders under the law. It proposes the death penalty for rape convicts.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
X says Sahyog portal a ‘wolf in sheep's clothing' before 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. X says Sahyog portal a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' before 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. '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. 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. Friday's hearing follow one from last week dramatic moments when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta created a fake X account named 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' to demonstrate misinformation risks, only to have the platform suspend the fictional handle during the hearing itself. The government has also challenged X's legal standing to bring the case, arguing that as a foreign company not incorporated in India, it cannot claim constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21. Mehta had previously warned that any resistance to takedown orders could result in X losing its immunity from legal consequences under Indian law, including withdrawal of safe harbour protection that shields it from liability for user content. The Karnataka High Court will continue hearing the matter on July 29.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
'25 likes & 5 comments': Cops book Facebook page, users for post targeting Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah
Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah (File photo) BENGALURU: A routine social media monitoring exercise by cybercrime police has led to a suo motu case against a Facebook page and users for interacting on an allegedly derogatory post targeting CM Siddaramaiah. The post, written in Kannada and uploaded on July 21 on 'True Secular' page, accused Siddaramaiah of targeting religious institutions across his terms in office. It claimed he had acted against the Udupi Sri Krishna Mutt during his first term, attempted to alienate the Lingayat community from Hinduism, and was now targeting Dharmasthala. The post had drawn 25 likes & five comments - some of which included alleged derogatory remarks about the CM's leadership. These engagements are now part of the FIR, with the names of those who commented & some who liked the post also listed. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Post found during regular monitoring by cops Police said the post was spotted on July 23 during regular monitoring by sub-inspector Kubera from the cybercrime station attached to the commissioner's office. A senior police officer said the case has been booked under the Information Technology Act, 2000, andSection 299 of BNS, which pertains to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. The development comes days after the state govt announced a special investigation team to probe allegations of serial rapes and murders in Dharmasthala — a move that has triggered political reactions and sharp commentary online.
