Latest news with #KGRaghavan
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Business
- 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.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Business
- 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.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Sahyog Portal is wolf in sheep's clothing: X Corp before Karnataka HC
X Corp Friday compared the Sahyog Portal to a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' during a hearing before the Karnataka High Court regarding its plea against takedown orders. 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.
Time of India
18-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
ETtech Explainer: X, Centre at loggerheads over social media misuse
In a legal battle on accountability versus liberty, the government of India and Elon Musk's microblogging platform X are slugging it out in the Karnataka High Court. At the eye of the storm are the government's content-blocking orders and issues arising out of them. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Indian government and Elon Musk's X are engaged in a legal battle before the Karnataka High Court over the question of accountability versus liberty. The microblogging platform has argued that the government's content-blocking orders hinder its business. In response, the government has advocated for justified action against misleading content on social matter has raised questions over the Information Technology Act, 2000 provisions that mandate taking down problematic content and grant 'safe harbour' to intermediaries that host take a look at arguments set forth so far by both parties and their prospective implications:In its plea before the Karnataka High Court, X has asked for the scrapping of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules as unconstitutional. It also wants the court to declare that the government cannot take down content under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, and only the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with the IT Rules, allows 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, mandates that intermediaries should take down unlawful content following a court order or appropriate government notification under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, which rescinds 'safe harbour' against criminal liability granted to such entities if they fail to take down information after being notified.X has been vocal about takedown orders from the government, calling them unjustified and detrimental to its business in a hearing earlier this month, KG Raghavan, representing X in the matter, had told the court that every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" government official had been authorised to issue content takedown orders, which evoked sharp rebuke from the government's the legal spat is unfolding as Musk is looking to launch and expand his companies—Tesla and Starlink—in Indian government has been proposing regulations for content on social media platforms to curb the proliferation of harmful the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that X has been trying to shirk its responsibility by hiding behind 'safe harbour' provisions. The platform allowing unlawful content in the name of free speech is endangering democracy, Mehta the hearing on Friday, the law officer presented before the court a verified account of the 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' on X to make the point that creating fake accounts and getting them verified are easy on the platform."We have created an AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation. It's unlawful, but it doesn't fit any category under Section 69A," Mehta told the single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, pressing his point that many instances of online harm fall into a regulatory grey explained that the legal framework includes both severe and minimal interventions and advocated for cautious, proportionate responses in certain court will now hear the matter next on July the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack in April, several social media accounts across platforms were blocked by the Indian government to check the spread of misinformation amid heightened bilateral tensions. While the accounts were primarily from Pakistan, some Indian accounts were affected in the action as May 9, X blocked its own Global Government Affairs account, a day after revealing that it was asked by the government to restrict 8,000 accounts of prominent news organisations and individuals. The social media platform said the government threatened significant fines and imprisonment of its employees upon failure to comply. The account was later July 6, official accounts of the global news portal Reuters and Reuters Global were withheld in India. While the IT Ministry denied issuing any order to this effect, X said that it was asked to block 2,355 accounts, along with the two from Reuters, under Section 69A of the IT response, the government blamed X for delaying the restoration of the two accounts and denied its claims that it wanted to block any international news ongoing spat has also brought into focus the 'safe harbour' accorded to internet intermediaries against third-party content they host. In his arguments, Mehta has noted that safe harbour is not an absolute right but a privilege granted to intermediaries who adhere to a written submission to a parliamentary committee, the government had said that it is reconsidering the concept of safe harbour to curb the spread of fake news. Changes in provisions would affect all social media platforms operating in India, not just X.
Time of India
11-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Govt bypassing safeguards under law to order content takedown: X tells HC
Microblogging platform X Corp said on Friday that the Indian government is using a 'smart and ingenious workaround' to avoid the legal safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in a 2015 order with respect to take down of content or blocking of social media would the Indian government follow the lengthy and complicated procedure of safeguards provided under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act when an easy path via Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and the Sahyog Portal is available to issue content takedown notices, the company asked the Karnataka High Musk-owned X, formerly Twitter, has petitioned the high court challenging the way the government issues orders to take down union home ministry had developed the Sahyog portal to automate the process of sending notices to counsel KG Raghavan, appearing for X, said Rule 3(1)(d) effectively seeks to undo the apex court ruling in the 2015 Shreya Singhal case and must be struck down, because it undermines the safeguards provided in Section 69A of the IT Section 69A, content can be blocked only in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, or similar grounds listed in Article 19(2) that deals with the fundamental right to freedom of speech expression. The process requires an inter-ministerial committee to review the request and provides affected parties an opportunity to be heard (except in emergencies), and records written reasons for the blocking noted that both Section 69A and Section 79 are administered by the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY), but only Section 69A includes procedural safeguards like an inter-ministerial committee, written orders and judicial of following that, he said, MeitY has chosen the easy path, using Rule 3(1)(d) to issue notices without statutory also questioned the legal validity of the Sahyog Portal. According to Raghavan, there is no notification or statutory provision authorising the portal's creation, yet intermediaries are being told to onboard via letters from government next hearing is on July 17 when the government will present its industry body Digipub, which represents 92 digital-first publishers and journalists, also made submissions supporting X's argued that the distinction between online and offline media cannot be used as a blanket justification to sidestep to it, the government has turned Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act, an exemption provision, into an empowerment provision, which neither the language of the Act nor the Rules support.'The creation of such a regime is, in itself, arbitrary,' Digipub submitted.
