A lawyer for Elon Musk’s X told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday that if every “Tom, Dick and Harry” government official is authorised to send content takedown notices then it would amount to misuse of official powers, remarks that drew strong condemnation from the Centre as well as the judge.
The remarks were made when X Corp India, the Indian arm of the social media platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), informed the court that it had recently received a notice from the Ministry of Railways seeking the removal of a video showing a woman driving a car on a railway track in Hyderabad.
During hearing of arguments in a related case, X Corp India questioned whether every government official had the authority to issue content takedown notices under the Information Technology (IT) Act.
Making his submissions, Senior Advocate K G Raghavan argued against what he termed as misuse of official powers.
“What if every Tom, Dick and Harry officer sends me notices? See how this is being misused,” he said.
Raghavan questioned whether such content qualified as unlawful, remarking, “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, appearing for the Union of India, objected strongly to the language used, stating, “They are officers, not Tom, Dick and Harry. They are statutory functionaries with legal authority. International entities should not display such arrogance”.
Mehta emphasised that no social media platform should expect to operate without regulation, noting that intermediaries follow laws in other countries and should do the same in India.
Justice M Nagaprasanna also expressed disapproval of the remarks, affirming the stature of Union government officers and stating, “I take objection to this. They are officers of the Union of India.” ‘X’ Corp has sought a judicial declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not empower all government officials to issue blocking orders, arguing that such orders must follow the procedure laid out in Section 69A of the Act, along with the relevant blocking rules.
Additionally, the company has requested the court to prevent government ministries from taking coercive or adverse actions against it based on blocking orders not issued in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing an association of digital media houses that filed an intervention application, said content creators are directly affected when platforms are ordered to take down content.
When the bench questioned how the association was aggrieved in a matter between the government and X, Sondhi responded that takedown orders impact their published material.
Mehta, however, objected to the intervention, stating that ‘X’ Corp is a capable international company and does not need third-party support.
“I object to any third-party application filed in support of Twitter,” he added.
The bench scheduled the matter for final hearing on July 8 and permitted ‘X’ Corp to amend its petition to include various Union ministries.
The Union of India was directed to file its response to the impleading application before the next hearing.
