Latest news with #XCorp
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.
Hans India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Social media monitors us constantly, need to regulate: Centre tells HC
Bengaluru: There was an urgent need for regulation in the digital space, due to the constant surveillance by social media, rising cybercrime, and the evolving threat landscape, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court during a hearing on the X Corp (formerly Twitter) case over content takedown directives. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, argued that internet intermediaries like 'X' must act responsibly and cannot claim the same constitutional rights as individuals. 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 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.
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.
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.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Centre tells Karnataka HC 'chilling effect' not an all-in-all solution
The central government on Friday told the Karnataka High Court that claiming a 'chilling effect' on free speech cannot be an all-in-all solution against reasonable restrictions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before the court that reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution on Freedom of Speech and Expression are an 'elastic' concept that must evolve with the ever-expanding scope of Article 19(1)(a) in today's technologically advanced era. The Karnataka High Court is hearing X (formerly Twitter) Corp's plea against the Centre, challenging the unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship through the Ministry of Home Affairs' Sahyog Portal. The Centre is now making its submissions before Justice M Nagaprassana after X argued its case. X Corp has argued that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act does not confer the government with the authority to issue information blocking orders, and that such orders can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with IT Rules. The social media platform has also argued that content take-down orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act have a chilling effect on its users. While Section 69A empowers the government to block access to information, subject to specific procedures and safeguards, Section 79 serves as an exemption provision, providing a 'safe harbour' for intermediaries. Responding to this, SG Mehta said that the chilling effect is not a defence for disseminating content that is 'not in the interest of society' and that X cannot claim a chilling effect on behalf of its users. He quoted a 2020 case of the Supreme Court where a 3-judge bench had observed that the widening of the 'chilling effect doctrine' has always been viewed with judicial scepticism. Talking about the misuse of technology, Mehta submitted that if, hypothetically, an AI video of the judge saying something against the nation were created, it would not fall within the vires of Section 69A but would unquestionably be unlawful, and this is where Section 79 comes in. "Section 69A is not only about taking down, but also a penal provision. Courts have developed that my fundamental rights of doing something may come into conflict with other persons' fundamental rights, so there is always a competition of fundamental rights—Article 14, 19, 21. Therefore, jurisprudence is developed for balancing competing fundamental rights to achieve constitutional goals." Mehta also argued that to curb the menace, such as fake accounts and posts, 'safe harbour' protection to intermediaries cannot be absolute. Take-down directives issued under Section 79(3)(b) are an exception to the exception of safe harbour, he said. "Similar safe harbour provisions and exceptions to exceptions exist in all jurisdictions of the world. This is the only social media intermediary (X Corp) that has a problem and is before the court. X Corp in some other jurisdictions has been fined, censured, etc. I have shown that certain intermediaries are not complying, and every country is grappling. Any deviation from the exception to safe harbour, taking care, due diligence, etc., is viewed seriously now by all you are informed and you do not follow guidelines, then 'safe harbour' will be lost," Mehta said.
