Today, On 18th July, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Karnataka High Court that a fake ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka’ account was created on X, during a hearing on X Corp’s petition challenging the Centre’s new “Sahyog” portal.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the Karnataka High Court that the social media platform X had permitted the creation of a fraudulent account under the name “Supreme Court of Karnataka.”
This example was used to emphasize the dangers of anonymity and the absence of editorial responsibility on social media platforms during proceedings before Justice M Nagaprasanna, who was considering X Corp’s petition against the Centre’s “Sahyog portal” and the regulations governing its establishment.
The matter was heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
The Sahyog portal, initiated by the Central government, serves to notify online intermediaries about unlawful content so that such material can be removed. SG Mehta argued that the portal was designed for administrative ease, allowing all online platforms to efficiently track official notices regarding unlawful content.
He questioned X Corp’s reasons for challenging this mechanism, calling it the least intrusive method to address unlawful content and noting that new solutions are needed to tackle the challenges posed by the evolving internet.
Mehta raised concerns about the ease of creating fake social media accounts, illustrating his point with a screenshot of a Twitter/X account that falsely claimed to be the “Supreme Court of Karnataka.”
He stated,
“(There is an account) in the name of ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka.’ And it is a verified account by Twitter. And I can post anything in that and lakhs and lakhs of people who view that will say ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka’ has said this. I can remain anonymous or pseudonymous…We have not used it, because otherwise it comes in public domain. This is just to show there exists an account.”
In response, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, expressed strong objections to Mehta’s claims. He asserted that the account should not be presented against them without being formally recorded for scrutiny.
Raghavan emphasized that anonymity concerns are not exclusive to online platforms and disputed the claim that X Corp had verified the fake account.
As the hearing concluded, Raghavan noted that X Corp had suspended the fraudulent account.
He stated,
“Just to end on a good note, that account has been suspended, the ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka’ account. We are a responsible business house…If something comes from my learned friend, I have no difficulty…My instructions is that it is not even a verified account. Statement made was that it was gone through our filtration process, that was not true.”
Additionally, SG Mehta questioned the maintainability of X Corp’s petition in the High Court, asserting that as a foreign entity, it could not claim rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) or Article 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution of India.
He argued that the Sahyog portal merely informs intermediaries about unlawful content, leaving the decision to remove such content to the platforms themselves. He pointed out that if an intermediary fails to act, the only consequence is the loss of its “safe harbour” status.
Mehta also challenged the notion that the Centre’s Sahyog mechanism imposes a chilling effect, stating,
“Chilling effect is a word coined for a different purpose, but used at the drop of a hat when you have no other argument.”
He firmly stated that,
“Chilling effect is not a one and all solution in cases of Article 19 (1) (a).”
In his written arguments, he contended that the greatest threat to free speech arises not from the government but from private monopolies like X Corp.
The hearing has been adjourned. The case will resume for rejoinder submissions on July 25.
Case Title: X CORP V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, WP 7405/2025
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES