Tom, Dick & Harry Govt Officials: Centre And X Spar In Karnataka HC

The showdown between the Centre and X over take down orders continues to escalate. During a hearing before the Karnataka High Court yesterday, the social media platform’s counsel reportedly remarked that every “Tom, Dick and Harry” government official has been authorised to issue content takedown orders.

As per Reuters, X’s lawyer, KG Raghavan, informed the HC that the platform recently received a notice from the railways department to remove a video, which featured a car being driven on a railway track. Raghavan argued that the video was “news” but the government found it “unlawful”.

“This is the danger, My Lord, that is done now, if every Tom, Dick, and Harry officer is authorised,” Raghavan reportedly said. 

The characterisation quickly drew immediate condemnation from Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who reportedly noted that “officers are not Tom, Dick, or Harry … they are statutory functionaries”. 

“No social media intermediary can expect completely unregulated functioning,” Mehta reportedly said. 

Meanwhile, Economic Times reported that X also filed a plea before the Karnataka HC to amend its petition filed four months ago. The social media platform reportedly made an additional demand to scrap Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, which empowers the government agencies to order intermediaries to remove content pieces from their platforms.

Notably, the original petition sought to declare that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 did not authorise the government to issue information blocking orders to social media platforms. It is pertinent to note that the Section empowers authorities to revoke safe harbour immunity for intermediaries for not complying with take down orders. 

Meanwhile, SG Mehta noted that he had no objections in allowing the petition to be amended. After hearing both sides, Justice Nagaprasanna, as per ET, allowed X to file its amended petition in two days. The HC also set July 8 as the date for the final hearing. 

Microblogging site X (formerly Twitter) has made a plea to amend its petition filed in the Karnataka High Court four months ago, making an additional demand to scrap Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules that empowers government agencies to order intermediaries to remove content from their platforms. 

The original petition, filed in March, had sought the court to declare that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 does not authorise the government to issue information blocking orders to intermediaries, or social media platforms, like X. 

Section 79(3)(b) provides for authorities to remove immunity from liability accorded to intermediaries if they failed to comply with orders to take down unlawful content. In conjunction with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, it also allows them to issue takedown orders. 

On Tuesday, senior counsel KG Raghavan, appearing for X, informed Justice M Nagaprasanna of the high court that he had filed a plea to amend the original petition. 

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the government, said he has filed objections based on the merits of the proposed amendment but has no objections in allowing the petition to be amended. 

In a written statement filed on June 30, the government opposed challenging the constitutionality of the rule at “this late stage”. 

X is seeking the court to declare Rule 3(1)(d) unconstitutional for being ultra vires (exceeding the remit) of the IT Act, or at least read it down and to declare that it does not grant the state any blocking powers. 

This follows the HC, in April, reportedly adjourning the final hearing in the petition filed by the social media platform, challenging the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to block content to July 1. At the time, Raghavan had sought the adjournment on the grounds that the petitioner wanted to file applications seeking amendments to the petition.

Govt Vs X

At the heart of the matter is X’s plea, filed in March this year, which argues that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act contradicts Supreme Court’s (SC) judgement in the Shreya Singhal case, which permits blocking of content only via Section 69A of the IT Act or a court order.

In previous hearings, X’s counsel even called the government’s Sahyog portal a “Censorship Portal”, adding that the law did not mandate the creation of the portal or a statutory requirement to appoint a nodal officer for such a portal.

It is pertinent to note that Sahyog portal has been created by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to “streamline” Section 79(3)(b) orders. 

On the other hand, the Centre contends that X has misinterpreted the provisions of the IT Act, particularly Sections 69A and 79(3)(b). 

The Centre argued that while Section 69A “explicitly” allows authorities to issue blocking orders under specific conditions and provides multiple safeguards for restriction of online content, Section 79(3)(b) only required digital intermediaries to fulfill their obligations upon receiving notices from agencies.

Amid the developments in the case, digital media body DigiPub and online portal Newslaundry’s cofounder Abhinandan Sekhri last month submitted an intervention application to join X’s ongoing lawsuit and challenge the IT Act provision.