During a hearing in the Karnataka High Court, X Corp’s lawyer remarked that content takedown powers cannot be given to “every Tom, Dick and Harry” official. The comment triggered strong reactions from both the Centre and the judge.
During a hearing at the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, a lawyer representing Elon Musk’s X raised concerns about the potential misuse of official powers if every “Tom, Dick and Harry” government official were allowed to issue content takedown notices.
These remarks provoked strong criticism from both the Centre and the presiding judge.
This discussion arose when X Corp India, the Indian branch of the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, informed the court about a notice it had received from the Ministry of Railways. The notice requested the removal of a video depicting a woman driving a car on railway tracks in Hyderabad.
Also Read: Indian Govt’s ‘Sahyog’ Portal: Karnataka HC to Hear X Corp’s Plea on July 8
Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan, presenting arguments for X Corp India, questioned whether all government officials had the authority to issue such takedown notices under the Information Technology (IT) Act.
He expressed concern about the potential for misuse, stating,
“What if every Tom, Dick and Harry officer sends me notices? See how this is being misused.”
Raghavan further questioned the unlawfulness of the content in question, stating,
“Some woman drove a car on railway tracks. Milords knows dog biting man is not news, but man biting dog is news.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, strongly objected to this characterization, asserting,
“They are officers, not Tom, Dick and Harry. They are statutory functionaries with legal authority. International entities should not display such arrogance.”
Mehta stressed that no social media platform should operate without regulatory oversight, noting that intermediaries comply with laws in other countries and should do the same in India.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna also expressed disapproval of Raghavan’s comments, emphasizing the importance of Union government officers, stating,
“I take objection to this. They are officers of the Union of India.”
X Corp is seeking a judicial declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not grant all government officials the power to issue blocking orders. The company argues that such orders must adhere to the procedures outlined in Section 69A of the Act and the relevant blocking rules.
Additionally, it requests the court to prevent government ministries from taking coercive actions based on blocking orders that do not follow the established procedures.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing an association of digital media houses that filed an intervention application, noted that content creators are directly affected when platforms are ordered to remove content. When the bench inquired how the association was aggrieved in a matter involving the government and X, Sondhi explained that takedown orders impact their published material.
Mehta opposed the intervention, asserting that X Corp is a capable international entity and does not require third-party support.
He stated,
“I object to any third-party application filed in support of Twitter,”
The bench has scheduled the matter for final hearing on July 8 and has allowed X Corp to amend its petition to include various Union ministries.
The Union of India has been directed to respond to the impleading application before the next hearing.