Today, On 18th July, In the X Corp case, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court that “chilling effect is not a one and all solution” under Article 19(1)(a), defending evolving restrictions on free speech in the digital age.
The Central Government told the Karnataka High Court that the idea of putting reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution is an “elastic” concept.
The matter was heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
The Centre said this concept must keep evolving, especially in today’s fast-changing world where technology has expanded the scope of free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Union Government, resumed his arguments against X Corp’s petition challenging the Centre’s ‘Sahyog’ portal – a mechanism developed for content blocking.
SG Mehta said,
“Every country is facing these issues. I cited examples of X, though I could give others but won’t burden the court. Any exception to safe harbour, like due diligence, is taken very seriously by all jurisdictions.”
He added that not all online content posted by intermediaries like X Corp is protected under the right to free speech.
He said,
“Not all content on intermediaries falls under Article 19(1)(a). Many company accounts are used to promote policies and progress, these are advertising accounts, and commercial speech gets only limited protection under Article 19(1)(a).”
On the specific rule under challenge, SG Mehta clarified,
“What’s being challenged is Rule 3(1)(d), which only cautions that certain content is unlawful it does not direct its removal, just issues a warning. If they are aggrieved, they need to challenge the underlying law that declares it unlawful.”
Explaining further with a hypothetical example, he said,
“If hypothetically, there were a law banning criticism of the government, that specific law could be challenged. But Rule 3(1)(d) itself cannot be, because it is a general provision that simply requires informing about anything that violates existing law.”
He questioned how X Corp could invoke Article 19 when it is only a platform and not a speaker itself.
“We do not have any speech or expression. We are only a platform where others express themselves. How can they bring Article 19. Although they have brought an intervenor. Tushar Mehta would be afraid to post something as govt might tell twitter that it is illegal that’s chilling effect on me.”
He firmly stated that,
“Chilling effect is not a one and all solution in cases of Article 19 (1) (a).”
He also referred to the Supreme Court’s observation in the Anuradha Bhasin case, noting that,
“Courts have approached any broadening of the chilling effect doctrine with caution and skepticism.”
In a lighter moment, the Solicitor General shared advice for upcoming lawyers,
“To be a great constitution lawyer you should start with Puttuswamy earlier Keshvanand Bharti.”
The court remarked that this is a favourite judgment among Advocates on Record. SG responded,
“Must be from an NLU. These NLU people are much more informed and focused. They are taught to constitutional lawyers not lawyers.”
The Solicitor General highlighted how intermediaries across the world had responded when stricter rules were introduced.
“All intermediaries around the world made representation that we are only providing a platform after the imposition of strict liability for something that has been posting. They suggested to come a mid way to impose liability if I have the knowledge of the content and still not being done anything about it.”
He also accused intermediaries of misusing technology.
“Intermediaries already possess filters and algorithms capable of monitoring content but deliberately avoid using them, as unchecked content can drive more traffic and increase revenue.”
He criticised X Corp for invoking Article 14.
“I find it ironic that they invoke Article 14, the right to equality. This is an American company could an Indian company go to the US and challenge a government policy as arbitrary? I’ll leave it there. They have no locus. In fact, X’s case was earlier dismissed for lack of locus, and given their conduct, costs were imposed by the Division Bench.”
He discussed the case involving Subramanian Swamy to support his point.
On the ‘Sahyog’ portal, SG Mehta said,
“The Sahyog portal is meant for administrative convenience and to make compliance easier. I don’t see any valid objection. It’s not practical for the government to approach a court every time unlawful content appears online. Given the viral nature of the internet, you can’t afford to wait for a court ruling before action is taken.”
He highlighted the risks of anonymity on social media, saying,
“In other mediums like television, magazine, etc it is not possible to breach the privacy or use filthy language with maintaining anonymity. I can open my phone and make a twitter page of HC of Karnataka and post anything and it can be a verified account from twitter.”
He continued,
“In other mediums like newspapers, movies have institutionalised norms but internet is based on more individualistic approach. In other mediums it is not possible to make abusive material and make it available to trillions.”
SG Mehta argued that X Corp, being a foreign company, has no legal standing to file such a case under Article 226 by invoking rights under Article 19. “X has no locus to file under Article 226 for Article 19 (1) (a).”
He added,
“It is individual citizens who can enforce these rights. The petitioner, X Corp, is a foreign artificial entity, so Articles 226 and 19 do not apply to it. Article 21 also does not extend to a juristic person, especially not a foreign one. A company ,something that can be wound up under law , cannot claim the right to life.”
The court then asked a key constitutional question,
“So Article 19 is only for citizens, Article 21 for natural persons, but Article 14 applies broadly?”
SG Mehta responded,
“That’s one view, but I believe a foreign company doing business here cannot claim a policy is arbitrary they chose to operate in India. They can form an Indian subsidiary and specify who would be liable if IT laws are violated.”
In a brief exchange at the end of the hearing, Advocate Raghavan said,
“Just to end on a good note, that account has been suspended.”
The court asked,
“Which account?”
Raghavan replied,
“Supreme Court of Karnataka.”
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
