Latest news with #SupremeCourtofKarnataka
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SG creates fake ‘SC of Karnataka' X account to flag misuse, defends blocking orders in HC
BENGALURU: To demonstrate how platform 'X' can be misused, and the necessity to curtail its misuse, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta on Friday showed the Karnataka High Court a fake account in the name of the 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' which was verified by the platform X. Making a submission before Justice M Nagaprasanna, while hearing a petition filed by X Corp questioning the series of blocking orders issued by the Union government, Mehta drew the attention of the court by giving an illustration to defend the blocking orders. Mehta explained that they opened an account in the name of 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' on X, and it is a verified account. 'Now we can post anything on it, and viewers can say that the Supreme Court of Karnataka said it. The creator of the account remains anonymous,' he submitted. However, senior counsel KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, took serious exception to the demonstration of a fake account and also the contention of the Solicitor General, who in turn contended that the fake account was created only to demonstrate the element of misuse and was not used. Interfering at this stage, the court said a fake account is only an illustration that creating such accounts on the intermediary is easy, and it will not prejudice the case of X. Later, Raghavan informed the court that the said fake account has been blocked by X. X Corp moved the Karnataka High Court, seeking to declare that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) does not confer powers on the Union government to issue information-blocking orders under the IT Act. It prayed to the high court to declare that information-blocking orders can only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules). X Corp also requested the court to restrain the Union government from taking coercive or prejudicial action against them for not joining the censorship portal Sahyog, as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has attempted delegation of power that it itself does not have, and should be struck down. Further hearing was adjourned to July 25.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Solicitor general creates fake ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka' X account to prove misinformation point, deletes later
Bengaluru/New Delhi : Solicitor general Tushar Mehta created a fake X account named 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' and presented it to the Karnataka high court on Friday to demonstrate online misinformation risks — only to have the platform suspend the fictional handle by the time the hearing ended. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. (File Photo) Mehta handed his mobile phone to justice M Nagaprasanna to show the fake account, complete with the court's photograph and official-looking handle, arguing it proved how easily false content could spread online. 'We have opened one account in the name of Supreme Court of Karnataka. And Twitter (X) has opened that account. And it is a verified account by Twitter (X)... now I can post anything in that, and lakhs and lakhs of people who view that account will say Supreme Court of Karnataka has said this,' Mehta told the court. The demonstration was meant to underscore the need for stronger government oversight of social media platforms. In response, X Corp's counsel, senior advocate KG Raghavan, questioned the propriety of creating fake handles without officially placing them on record. Then, as the two-hour hearing concluded, Raghavan announced X had already suspended the fictional account. 'Just to end on a good note, that account has been suspended. We are a responsible organisation,' Raghavan told the court, much to the amusement of the bench. He also clarified that contrary to the solicitor general's claim, the account was not verified by X. Mehta clarified the account was 'purely representational' for 'demonstrative purposes' with no posts made from it, but used the episode to advance broader arguments about user anonymity and platform accountability. 'If a user posts illegal content and is anonymous, who will the aggrieved party sue? X Corp has no officers in India except a grievance officer. Where is the accountability?' he asked. The courtroom drama unfolded during X's legal challenge to the Union government's Sahyog portal, which the company calls a 'censorship portal' that bypasses constitutional safeguards. X argues the portal allows thousands of government officials to issue content takedown orders without proper oversight. Mehta criticised X for resisting Indian regulatory frameworks while complying with local laws elsewhere. 'All other intermediaries have joined the Sahyog portal. Only X Corp has refused. They object to even a non-binding mechanism,' he said. 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. The government created Sahyog portal to handle notices under Section 79(3)(b) for quick action against illegal online content. The portal is meant to streamline the process by allowing a number of authorised officials— at the state and central levels — to dispatch notices to intermediaries who are onboarded onto the platform. The solicitor general also challenged X's fundamental right to bring the case, arguing the platform lacked legal standing as a foreign company not incorporated in India. The government contended that constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21 extend primarily to Indian citizens and, in certain cases, to entities incorporated within the country. Additionally, Mehta dismissed X's free speech arguments, contending the platform cannot invoke constitutional protections since it claims to be merely an intermediary. 'They say they are not speakers or authors of the posts, only intermediaries. If that is true, how can they invoke free speech rights?' he asked. The case stems from X's March petition challenging the government's directive mandating social media platforms join the Sahyog portal. The company argues the government is creating parallel blocking mechanisms under Section 79(3)(b) that bypass safeguards required under Section 69A, which the Supreme Court upheld in the landmark Shreya Singhal case. X has previously objected to what its lawyers called takedown orders from 'every Tom, Dick, and Harry' government official, drawing sharp criticism from government representatives. The Karnataka High Court will hear the case next on July 25, when X will file its rejoinder submissions.
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Centre creates fake ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka' account to demonstrate ease of social media misuse
The Central government on Friday (July 18, 2025) presented before the High Court of Karnataka a fake social media account, created by its officials on social media platform X in the name of 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' — an institution that does not exist — to demonstrate how easily such accounts can be created and misused. The account, which was verified by X, was created solely for demonstrative purposes, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta clarified to the court while showing the account on a mobile phone. 'We have opened one account in the name of 'Supreme Court of Karnataka'... and X has also verified the account. Now I can post anything in that account and lakhs and lakhs of people who view that will say that Supreme Court of Karnataka has said this... and I can remain anonymous,' Mr. Mehta said. The submission was made before Justice M. Nagaprasanna during the hearing of a petition filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter Inc.), which has challenged blocking orders issued by Central and State authorities under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The platform has alleged that these actions bypass safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court. 'Censorship portal' The petition also raises objections to the Central government's new 'Sahyog' portal, describing it as a 'censorship portal' that enables government agencies to issue blocking orders using a pre-approved template. Senior advocate K.G. Raghavan, appearing for X, objected to the presentation of the fake account without placing any related material formally on record. The judge, however, noted that the Centre was attempting to show how easily such accounts can be created on intermediary platforms. Mr. Mehta further clarified that the account had not been used and remained inactive, as it would have entered the public domain otherwise. He added that the intention was only to demonstrate the potential misuse of any social media platform, not just X. 'Account suspended' Following the conclusion of Mr. Mehta's arguments defending the Sahyog portal and the blocking orders, Mr. Raghavan informed the court that the fake account titled 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' had now been suspended. He reiterated that X is 'a responsible business house'.
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questions locus of X Corp to approach Karnataka High Court under right to freedom of speech
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Friday questioned the locus standi of X Corp to approach the Karnataka High Court under the aegis of the right to freedom of speech. He also raised the issue of internet anonymity by raising the example of a fake X account named 'Supreme Court of Karnataka'. 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.
Scroll.in
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech are ‘elastic', must evolve: Centre tells Karnataka HC
The reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution are an ' elastic ' concept that must evolve with changing technology, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court on Friday, reported Live Law. The statement came in response to a petition filed by social media platform X, which has challenged the legality of takedown notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This provision states that online intermediaries, such as social media platforms, can lose their safe harbour status if they fail to remove or disable access to content that is used to commit an 'unlawful act' despite being told to do so by government authorities. Removing this status would mean that the platforms would be liable for the content in question. The company has argued that the Centre is misusing this section to bypass the requirements of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to censor online content. Section 69A states that online content can be blocked on grounds such as national sovereignty, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign countries or public order. In contrast, Section 79(3)(b) does not define an 'unlawful act' and does not contain any review mechanism. X has also argued that the takedown orders create a 'chilling effect' on its users, Live Law reported. On Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the argument cannot be used as a defence to justify spreading content that is 'not in the interest of society'. Mehta added that X cannot claim the orders had created a 'chilling effect' on behalf of its users. 'Twitter [former name of X] says they offer a platform where others post and express their opinion,' Live Law quoted the solicitor general as saying. 'If they are only a notice board then how is their right to freedom of speech violated.' Fake 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' account Opposing X's petition, Mehta also showed the bench an account with the name 'Supreme Court of Karnataka', Live Law reported. 'Now I can post anything in that and lakhs and lakhs of people who view that and will say that Supreme Court of Karnataka has said this…and I can remain anonymous,' said Mehta. Mehta said that fake accounts and deepfake videos infringe on the right to privacy and the right not to be abused. To curb such threats, the 'safe harbour' protection for intermediaries cannot be absolute, the legal news outlet quoted Mehta as saying.
