The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday took strong exception to remarks made by a senior counsel representing X Corp India—formerly Twitter—who questioned the authority of government officers to issue content takedown notices under the Information Technology Act.
During a hearing in a case filed by X Corp challenging the scope of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan submitted that if “every Tom, Dick and Harry officer” could issue takedown notices, it would amount to misuse of power. The remarks were made in the context of a recent notice from the Ministry of Railways, which asked X to remove a video showing a woman driving a car on a railway track in Hyderabad.
The comments drew sharp criticism from both Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who was presiding over the matter. “They are officers of the Union of India. I take objection to this,” the judge observed.
Mehta condemned the language, stating, “They are not Tom, Dick and Harry. They are statutory functionaries. International entities should not display such arrogance.” He stressed that digital intermediaries must follow Indian laws, just as they do in other jurisdictions.
X Corp has argued that only properly empowered authorities following the procedure under Section 69A and the Blocking Rules can issue such takedown directions. The company has sought a declaration to this effect and requested the court to restrain ministries from taking coercive actions based on allegedly invalid blocking orders.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for a digital media association that sought to intervene in the case, said content takedown orders directly affect media publishers. The bench, however, questioned the locus of the intervenor, while Mehta objected outright to third-party intervention, saying, “Twitter does not need support.”
The court allowed X Corp to amend its petition to include multiple Union ministries as parties and scheduled the matter for final hearing on July 8. The Union of India has been asked to file its response to the impleadment application before the next date.
